Re: New Tin Drum Ruling

Daniel Bickley (
Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:21:16 -0800 (PST)


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!

Dan Bickley

>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
>Jessica Rosner

Daniel Bickley
Media Marketing Specialist
University of California Extension
Center for Media and Independent Learning
2000 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1223

Phone: 510-642-1340
Fax: 510-643-9271