[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Khoder bin Hakkin) writes:

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=73&u=/zd/20020226/tc_zd/5103755
> 
> Voyeurdorm sees major court win
> Tue Feb 26, 2:43 PM ET
> By Lisa M. Bowman, ZDNet News
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) said Monday it will not hear
> a case involving an attempt to shut down an adult Web site by the city
> of Tampa, Fla.
>
> The city had tried to shut down exhibitionist site Voyeurdorm.com,
> which provides 24-hour live Webcasts of a residence full of women
> while they "study, work out, bathe and live the lives of college
> co-eds." The city said the Tampa residence violated city zoning
> ordinances regulating the location of sexually oriented businesses.
>
> It's the second time a court has refused to consider the issue, paving
> the way for the Voyeurdorm to remain open for business. In November,
> the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) refused to
> grant a full-court hearing of the case.
>
> The city had asked for the full court review after a three-judge panel
> of the court ruled that city ordinances do not apply to the Web site,
> which operates primarily in cyberspace.
>
> Entertainment Network (ENI), which runs Voyeurdorm and other
> exhibitionist sites, praised the Supreme Court's move.
>
> "This is a victory for anyone operating a legitimate Internet site,
> whether or not it has adult content," ENI Chief Executive David
> Marshlack said in a statement. "It is obvious that the Internet should
> not be regulated under zoning laws written long before the Web was
> even dreamed of."
>
> ENI was also in federal court last year during an unsuccessful attempt
> to get permission to Webcast the execution of Oklahoma City bomber
> Timothy McVeigh (news - web sites).
>
> Tampa officials said a lower court may still issue a ruling on other
> parts of the case.
>
> "The Court's determination not to hear this case does not mean the
> case is over," said Assistant City Attorney Jerry Gewirtz. Gewirtz
> said the city will abide by any court rulings.

Reply via email to