Talk:United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc.
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Materials not "obscene"
editThe materials should not be described as "obscene", since no jury and no judge has found them to be so. Claims of prosecutors don't mean anything.
Also, it might be nice to link to the initial lower court's decision. AxelBoldt 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Fictional versus Real
editAssumedly at least some of these videos are fictional depictions (e.g. the one featuring Osama bin Laden) but the article does not mention which are fictional depictions and which are real. Pimlottc 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is especially important in the mention of Extreme Teen 24's supposed "pre-teen talked into sex" bit. I'm sure it was staged, obviously, but this needs to be clarified in the article somehow. Jeff Silvers 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The ruling of 2007
edit1st Feb 2007 has now come and gone. Maybe it's time for somebody to find out what the ruling was, and update the page. I would do it myself, but it would probably be easier for someone in America to do it, as they wouldn't have to rely on dubious internet sources. Branfish 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I tried looking it up onilne... Nothing is listed the Internet for what happened. I couldn't even find published court documents for 2/1/07 (although I did find ones from 2005). However, judging by their website, I don't think it's affected Extreme Associates' business any. I suppose we can assume the outcome was in their favor, since nothing is listed on their website for the case. As for what's actually there, I seriously doubt it needs to be elaborated on... --TheSlyFox 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)