With all due respect to Professor Wu, his take on US obscenity law is incorrect.

In his piece entitled "American Lawbreaking," Prof. Wu writes that "In the Unites States, using a computer to download obscenity is a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison."

This is incorrect. Federal obscenity law does not apply to consumption of obscene materials in the private home (see Stanley v. Georgia).

Under the example posed by Prof. Wu, the webmaster who owns the site with the allegedly obscene material could be found guilty of interstate distribution of obscenity, but the consumer would not be prosecuted.

A plain language reading of the statute is insufficient for analysis where obscenity law is concerned. One must also consider the intrepretative caselaw. With respect to distribution of obscene materials, I would suggest Stanley v. Georgia as a good first stop for your future analysis.

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who had this reaction.

I have some problems with this article, too - from poor research to laziness to simple lack of accuracy.

First, I wonder about the copout in the second paragraph - "Statistics on the downloading of "lewd pictures" are notoriously unreliable, but according to some surveys, 70 percent of men have admitted to visiting pornographic sites at some point." Well, Prof. Wu first should cite his source; there are plenty of places to find this statistic, but it sounds to me a lot like the AVN estimate that 70% of porn consumers are male - not that 70% of men have visited porn sites. The difference is subtle, but it nonetheless is a difference. Did anyone fact-check this article?

As to obscenity enforcement, Prof. Wu is just wrong. Period. Did he happen to hear about the aggressively covered issuing of indictments in Kansas over the past few weeks? Mainstream retailers were being prosecuted. While this may be an oversight, people's livelihoods hang in the balance. Again, some research would have solved this problem with the article, too.

To call adult entertainment unregulated is absurd. Let's start with local zoning laws that define where an adult entertainment establishment can be located. If that's not regulation, I don't know what is. 2257, the "Sarbanes-Oxley" of the porn business is another one. This law involves the careful tracking of who performs in which films, as well as their ages and proof thereof. If Prof. were to watch an adult film, he would see the 2257 disclosures on it.

The packaging of adult films may not carry warning labels, but they are unnecessary. Again, taking a look at how the business works - i.e. conducting more research - shows that labels are not necessary. If one were to go to an adult film store, he would see right away a sign out front indicating that the minimum age is 18 or 21 (depending on the location). Often, they check IDs (it has happened to me). So, you can't get to the product unless you meet the age restrictions and understand what you are buying. The same goes for the web. You may be able to lie about your age to view the catalog, but purchase requires a credit card. So, it's tough for kids to get their hands on this stuff.

I think it is about time for the mainstream media to cover the adult entertainment business, but they need to do it properly. Wu's article is a step in the wrong direction.

Does Stanley v. Georgia actually stand for the proposition you suggest? In Stanley, Georgia law made the possession of obscene material, not the purchase or sale, illegal. Do you have a cite for a case that says that Stanley immunizes the purchase of obscene material, as well as the mere possession?

At first glance, it would appear that if possession is legal, purchase should also be legal, but not necessarily. I've heard of at least one case where a felon was allowed to manufacture firearms from scratch even though he could not legally purchase firearms, finding a distinction between purchase and "mere possession".

Stanley might also not apply to images transferred across state lines from a web server to your computer, even if they are not sold or purchased. I think here we have an old case that hasn't quite kept up with technology.