Thanks for the update. But I've forgotten _where_ this all took place.
Which city and state are we talking about? Best wishes for the holidays!
>First for those of you who need a quick backround: In June 1997 a
>conservative political group took the video copy of THE TIN DRUM to the
>district attorny claiming it violated the states law on CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
>A local judge agreed and police proceeded to a number of local video stores
>to sieze the tape. Since the tape was out at several of the stores the
>police forced store clerks to tell them who had the tape checked out and
>the police went to the houses of people who had the tape and told them they
>would be arrested if they did not hand them over. The police and the DA
>were sued by the video stores and one customer for violating the first &
>fourth amemdments and the video privacy protection law (AKA the Bork Law)
>Got that. Ok last month after a year of the police & DA trying to stall the
>case a federal judge ruled that THE TIN DRUM did not contain child
>On Friday ( Dec 16) the same judge ruled that the police DID VIOLATE both
>the first amendment and the Video privacy law by seizing the tapes. He
>further ruled that the DA was also liable because he knew what they had
>done and did nothing to stop it. He also set up furthing hearings on the
>4th amemdment violations.
> Despite a near total disinterest from major media on this, it is a MAJOR
>ruling. It sets a federal precedent on "child pornography" and the first
>amendment and is the first major ruling on the video privacy law
> The case IS NOT OVER. The ACLU is still sueing for damages on behalf of
>one individual who had the tape siezed from his home
Media Marketing Specialist
University of California Extension
Center for Media and Independent Learning
2000 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1223