Jaclyn Courtney
United States v. Thomas
Facts: Robert Thomas and his wife began operating Amateur Action Computer Bulletin Board System from their home. It had e-mail, online chats, public messaging, and had files that members could access, transfer, and download onto their personal computers. Robert Thomas would scan nude pictures from magazine and post them online for members to download. Only those members could actually download these photographs. A United States Postal Inspector received a complaint and decided to investigate. After the inspector became a member he was able to download videos involving bestiality, oral sex, incest, sado-masochistic abuse, and sex scenes involving urination.
Procedural History: In 1994, a federal grand jury for the Western District of his wife with the following criminal violations: six counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 1465 for knowingly using and causing to be used a facility and means of interstate commerce through a computer for the purpose of transporting obscene, computer-generated materials in interstate commerce. Defendants contend that their conduct does not constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1465.
Issue: 1) Does Section 1465 apply to intangible objects like the computer files at issue here and 2) Did Congress not intend to regulate computer transmissions such as those involved here because Section 1465 does not expressly prohibit such conduct?
Holding: 1.) Yes; 2.) No.
Reasoning: Defendants focus on the means by which the GIF files were transferred rather than the fact that the transmissions began with computer-generated images in California and ended with the same computer-generated images in Tennessee. The manner in which the images moved does not affect their ability to be viewed on a computer screen in Tennessee or their ability to be printed out in hard copy in that distant location. Therefore, they are not intangible.
The court also recognized that the obvious purpose of Section 1465 was to prevent the channels of interstate commerce from being used to disseminate any obscene matter. It did not matter if computer transmissions were not put into the statute. The court used the Maxwell case which involved the transmission of obscene material over the internet and determined “the use of the terms ‘transports,’ ‘distribution,’ ‘picture,’ ‘image’ and ‘electrical transcription’ leads us to the inescapable conclusion the statute is fully applicable to the activities engaged in by applicant. . . . It is clear Congress intended to stem the transportation of obscene material in interstate commerce regardless of the means used to affect that end.â€
United States v. Thomas
Facts: Robert Thomas and his wife began operating Amateur Action Computer Bulletin Board System from their home. It had e-mail, online chats, public messaging, and had files that members could access, transfer, and download onto their personal computers. Robert Thomas would scan nude pictures from magazine and post them online for members to download. Only those members could actually download these photographs. A United States Postal Inspector received a complaint and decided to investigate. After the inspector became a member he was able to download videos involving bestiality, oral sex, incest, sado-masochistic abuse, and sex scenes involving urination.
Procedural History: In 1994, a federal grand jury for the Western District of his wife with the following criminal violations: six counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 1465 for knowingly using and causing to be used a facility and means of interstate commerce through a computer for the purpose of transporting obscene, computer-generated materials in interstate commerce. Defendants contend that their conduct does not constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1465.
Issue: 1) Does Section 1465 apply to intangible objects like the computer files at issue here and 2) Did Congress not intend to regulate computer transmissions such as those involved here because Section 1465 does not expressly prohibit such conduct?
Holding: 1.) Yes; 2.) No.
Reasoning: Defendants focus on the means by which the GIF files were transferred rather than the fact that the transmissions began with computer-generated images in California and ended with the same computer-generated images in Tennessee. The manner in which the images moved does not affect their ability to be viewed on a computer screen in Tennessee or their ability to be printed out in hard copy in that distant location. Therefore, they are not intangible.
The court also recognized that the obvious purpose of Section 1465 was to prevent the channels of interstate commerce from being used to disseminate any obscene matter. It did not matter if computer transmissions were not put into the statute. The court used the Maxwell case which involved the transmission of obscene material over the internet and determined “the use of the terms ‘transports,’ ‘distribution,’ ‘picture,’ ‘image’ and ‘electrical transcription’ leads us to the inescapable conclusion the statute is fully applicable to the activities engaged in by applicant. . . . It is clear Congress intended to stem the transportation of obscene material in interstate commerce regardless of the means used to affect that end.â€