Cincinnati Marriott Caves in to Pressure; Eliminates Adult Pay-Per-View From the Cincinnati Enquirer: The Citizens for Community Values in Cincinnati have waged a war against the Marriott hotel chain and won. Warned by local prosecutors that obscenity charges could be brought against them, operators of the Cincinnati Marriott Northeast have decided to stop offering pay-for-view adult movies to guests. CCV, an anti-pornography group assisted in getting the movies removed from the hotel by videotaping the in-room movies and forwarding tapes to the prosecutor. Other Greater Cincinnati hotels are being targeted in similar fashion. Phil Burress, president of theCCV, said “we're ecstatic” and that the CCV hopes for similar cooperation from other area prosecutors and hotel owners. Scott Greenwood, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, blasted CCV's hotel campaign as “fundamentalist, right-wing wackos ... trying to apply the lowest, most restrictive standards to something that is broadcast around the world. It's appalling. It's clearly a pressure tactic and it's anti-First Amendment and anti-personal autonomy,” Greenwood, a Cincinnati-based attorney went on to say. In June Marriott officials at the Mason hotel were contacted by Warren County Prosecutor Tim Oliver and told that the hotel's satellite TV adult programming, which he described as “quite explicit,” violated Ohio obscenity law and that they face possible charges should they continue to offer the service to guests. The hotel's decision to at least temporarily withdraw the adult service also pleased Oliver, who said, “That's what we wanted them to do.” In a July 24 letter to Oliver's office, Mason Marriott lawyer William O'Brien wrote that while the 302-room hotel is “committed to traditional family values,” it is also a business that caters to all members of the public, many of whom have widely varying tastes and opinions. O'Brien stated that though the hotel has removed the adult movie option for guests, it has “reserved the right to change its position.” He added, however, that any resumption of the adult entertainment would be accompanied by a notification to the prosecutor's office. An estimated 40 percent of the nation's hotels offer adult movie options, accounting for about 90 percent of pay-per-view revenue, according to Burress. Burress said his group is stepping up its efforts to wipe out what he described as the hotel industry's “white-collar pornography” because “they have started to bring in the hard stuff,” he said, referring to explicitly graphic adult movies. He said he is concerned that guests automatically have the option of accessing such adult fare rather than having to request the programming from the hotel and that children in the rooms “are only two or three clicks on a remote control from getting into it” — although hotels usually offer guests the ability to have the adult fare blocked. Ohio anti-First Amendment porn law put on hold [AP] A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of Ohio's new anti-pornography law, saying it's too broad and appears to violate the constitutional right of free speech. U.S. District Court Judge Walter Rice on Friday issued a temporary restraining order at the request of attorneys for bookstores, newspapers and video software dealers. The law adds computer images to the list of possible ways to display sexually explicit material and other content deemed "harmful to juveniles." Lawmakers passed the bill in February, and Gov. Bob Taft signed it in May. In his decision, Rice said the law's definition of what is harmful to juveniles is too broad and outlaws conduct and expression protected by the First Amendment. As written, the law could affect publishers, booksellers and others who disseminate material to juveniles, Rice said. The temporary restraining order keeps the law from going into effect today. Rice said he will grant a preliminary injunction later, which is indefinite and could result in a trial. Prosecutors origianlly welcomed the new law, saying it would allow authorities to put sexual predators behind bars longer. "We could use this statute as something else in our arsenal," Craig King, assistant Greene County prosecutor, said earlier. "It would give us another charge to throw in." When predators send pornography or nude photos of themselves over the Internet, they can only be charged with attempted dissemination of matter harmful to juveniles, a misdemeanor, since the detectives aren't really minors, King said. Under the new law, the predators could be charged with a felony and face up to a year more jail time, he said. But bookstores, publishers and video software dealers who sued the state argued that the law would violate their First Amendment rights and would restrict Internet communications. In a hearing before Rice on July 31, Elise Porter, an assistant Ohio attorney general, said the law attempts to modernize the way Ohio fights pornography and gives authorities more tools to go after sexual predators who use the Internet to prey on juveniles. Michael Bamberger, the attorney for opponents of the law, said the statute is too broad, and its definition of what is harmful to juveniles is difficult to understand. He said the law would have a chilling effect on the dissemination of constitutionally protected speech and expression. Courts in six other states struck down attempts at similar restrictions, he said. State Rep. Jim Hughes, R-Columbus, sponsored the law after a case he handled while an assistant Franklin County prosecutor. In the case, Mark Maxwell, of Oxford, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1999 on charges that he enticed minors into sex through Internet chat rooms and e-mail. Some of the charges were dismissed because jurors said the law on disseminating pornography did not include electronic images, Hughes has said.