United States v. X-Citement Video

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
ArgueDate=October 5
ArgueYear=1994
DecideDate=November 29
DecideYear=1994
FullName=United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
USVol=513
USPage=64
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=982 F.2d 1285, reversed.
Holding=If a law can be read in a way such that it is constitutional, that interpretation must be used.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Rehnquist
JoinMajority=Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Scalia
JoinDissent=Thomas
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.", 513 U.S. 64 (1994) was a lawsuit filed in the United States in Woodland Hills, California district court against X-Citement Video and its owner Rubin Gottesman. The charge was trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. Gottesman had been sentenced to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

The defense challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the federal laws against child pornography, claiming they were unconstitutionally vague. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and reversed the district decision in 1992.

The case was appealed again to the Supreme Court, who reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit on November 29, 1994 because the relevant sections could be interpreted in a way that is constitutional.

Background

In 1986, federal authorities discovered that actress Traci Lords had made pornographic movies while underage. This incident formed the basis of several actions against people working in the pornography industry.

Rubin Gottesman owned X-Citement Video. In June 1986 he was visited by Los Angeles Police Officer Steven Takeshita and FBI Agent Nellie Magdaloyo. They posed as pornography retailers who wanted to buy videos from him. They made several more visits that year, culminating in Gottesman sending Traci Lords videos to Hawaii in early 1987. In the course of the investigation, they witnessed Gottesman giving acknowledgement of prior knowledge that Lords was underage during the making of those movies.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the sections in the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 dealing with the interstate transportation of underage pornography is unconstitutional. Part of the relevant provision states:

"(a) Any person who:""(1) knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer or mails, any visual depiction if":"(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and":"(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct."

The problem with the law was that the word 'knowingly' in section (1), judging from the grammar, does not extend to the conduct described in section (A).

If interpreted otherwise, the result would be that anybody trafficking in movies without knowing their content might be liable. This was the basis for the Ninth Circuit Court finding the law in violation of the First Amendment.The production of child pornography was unaffected by the ruling and remained prohibited.

upreme Court

The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. With a majority of 7-2, they ruled to reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit by upholding the lower court's findings of guilt.

They explained that if a rule "can" be interpreted in a way that is constitutional, then that interpretation must be used rather than declaring the rule unconstitutional. In effect, they made word 'knowingly' extend to the other clauses.

Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. In Scalia's dissent, he acknowledged this rule but only in cases where the new interpretation does not need an ungrammatical reading of the written rule.

Gottesman was released June 27 1997.

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=u10337 Opinion of the Supreme Court]