Alaska Employment Law

In U. S. v. Curtin, 2007 WL  1500295 (9th Cir. May 24, 2007), the 9th Circuit, en banc, reversed a criminal conviction for Internet porn.

 In a concurring opinion, Judge Kleinfeld stated:

I concur in the reversal of Curtin’s conviction. I agree with the majority that a trial judge must examine evidence in order to weigh its probative value against the potential for unfair prejudice, but disagree about whether the stories in question were relevant and admissible to show intent.
We ought to be wary when the government wants to use what people read against them. Our freedom to read and think requires a high wall restricting official scrutiny. The government (or others) can smear people by revealing what books they buy and borrow from the library, what magazines they purchase at the newsstand, what movies they rent at the video store, and what they look at on the internet. And not just for smut. Can the government introduce a defendant’s copy of The Monkey Wrench Gang, Lolita, or Junky, to prove intent? DVDs of The Thomas Crown Affair to prove intent to rob a bank, or Dirty Harry to prove intent to deprive someone of civil rights? Huckleberry Finn (with quotes out of context) to prove hate crime motivation? In the 1950s, people with leftist books sometimes shelved them spine to the wall, out of fear that visitors would see and report them. Perhaps these days they would shelve Huckleberry Finn or The Monkey Wrench Gang spine to the wall. Readers should not have to hide what they read to be safe from the government.

(Footnotes omitted.)