The crux of U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's attempt to prosecute Extreme Associates' distribution of sexual obscenity through the Internet is this: "Morality."
But isn't it strange that a postal agent provided a false identity to make mail-order purchases of tapes and to obtain video clips on a computer. Morality, it seems, should be relative to the situation. What would religious conservatives think of that?
After U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster in Pittsburgh tossed the charges, Ms. Buchanan is seeking reinstatement. Last week, she told a federal appeals court that the law should protect children and unwitting adults from obscenity and promote morality, public safety and social order.
Judge Lancaster expertly disposed of the contentions. Parents may install computer porn filters -- as do libraries -- and the use by any minor of a credit card likewise should be supervised.
An adult must provide name, address and credit card number over the Internet before gaining access to the obscenity cited in the indictment. There's nothing "unwitting" here.
The government may not ban distribution of obscenity that can be purchased in and viewed in the privacy of one's home in light of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Texas' sodomy law because it violated a fundamental right to privacy.
As for public order, watching porn in one's home is a private act.
The appeals court should affirm Lancaster's decision.
