United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

1994 United States Supreme Court case
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
Argued October 5, 1994
Decided November 29, 1994
Full case nameUnited States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
Citations513 U.S. 64 (more)
115 S. Ct. 464; 130 L. Ed. 2d 372
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
Subsequent982 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1992), reversed.
Holding
Conviction under federal statute prohibiting use of minor in pornographic film and distribution of same requires proof of knowledge that performer was a minor at time of production. As so interpreted, the statute is constitutional. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceStevens
DissentScalia, joined by Thomas

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner, Rubin Gottesman, on three charges of trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. In 1989, a federal judge found Gottesman guilty and later sentenced him to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.[1]

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.[2] The case was appealed again to the Supreme Court, which, in turn, by a 7-2 vote, reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit on November 29, 1994, because the relevant sections could be interpreted in a way that is constitutional.[3]

Background

In 1986, federal and local authorities discovered that actress Traci Lords had made pornographic movies while she was underage.[4] 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 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.[5]

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;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

The defense asserted that the word "knowingly" in section (1), judging from the grammar, did not extend to the conduct described in subsection (A) or (B).

If interpreted this way, the result would be that anybody buying or selling movies without knowing their content might be held criminally liable. This was the basis for the Ninth Circuit Court finding the law in violation of the First Amendment.[6]

Supreme 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 and uphold the criminal conviction.

They explained that if a law can be interpreted in a way that is constitutional, then that interpretation must be used rather than declaring the law unconstitutional. In effect, they made the 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 statute.

Gottesman was incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas and released on June 20, 1997.[7]

See also

  • Freedom of speech portal

References

  1. ^ "Video Porn Distributor Gets 1-Year Sentence". Los Angeles Times. October 24, 1989. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  2. ^ "Law on Child Pornography Struck Down: Court: A statute used to prosecute a Woodland Hills video distributor for selling films featuring an underage actress is called unconstitutional. His conviction is overturned". Los Angeles Times. December 17, 1992. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  3. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (November 30, 1994). "Supreme Court Upholds Government's Ambiguously Written Child Pornography Law". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  4. ^ "Sex Film Star Not Facing Charges, Reiner Says". Los Angeles Times. July 19, 1986. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  5. ^ Egan, Christina (1996). "Level of Scienter Required for Child Pornography Distributors: The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Knowingly in 18 U.S.C. 2252". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 86: 1341–1382. doi:10.2307/1144061. JSTOR 1144061.
  6. ^ "United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. X-citement Video, Inc., Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Rubin Gottesman, Defendant-appellant, 982 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1992)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 28, 2021.
  7. ^ "Inmate Locator". www.bop.gov. Retrieved May 28, 2021.

External links

  • Text of United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections