United States v. Robert Alan Thomas
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
74 F.3d 701 (1996)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Robert Thomas and his wife, Carleen (the Thomases) (defendants) operated the California-based Amateur Action Computer Bulletin Board System (AABBS). After completing a membership application requiring a telephone number and an address, an AABBS member could access sexually explicit graphic interchange format (GIF) images. In response to a complaint, a postal inspector in Memphis, Tennessee, purchased a membership and downloaded arguably obscene GIF images. The Thomases were convicted of using a facility of interstate commerce to transport obscene materials. On appeal, the Thomases argued that they did not cause the GIF files to be transmitted to Tennessee and therefore venue was improper in the Western District of Tennessee. The Thomases also claimed violations of their First Amendment free-speech rights because obscenity was determined by the Western District of Tennessee’s community standards. Amici curiae urged the court to change the definition of community for obscenity prosecutions involving electronic bulletin boards; they argued that because bulletin-board operators could not control who got their materials, determining obscenity by the standards of the community to which the materials were sent would force operators to censor materials based on the least tolerant standards.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edmunds, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.