BookRags.com Literature Guides Literature
Guides
Criticism & Essays Criticism &
Essays
Questions & Answers Questions &
Answers
Lesson Plans Lesson
Plans
My Bibliography Periodic Table U.S. Presidents Shakespeare Sonnet Shake-Up
Research Anything:        
History | Encyclopedias | Films | News | Create a Bibliography | More... Login | Register | Help
Not What You Meant?  There are 37 definitions for Freeman.

California v. Freeman

Print-Friendly
About 2 pages (555 words)

Bookmark and Share Questions on this topic? Just ask!
California v. Freeman

Supreme Court of California

August 25, 1988
Full case name: The People v. Harold Freeman
Citations: 46 Cal. 3d 419; 758 P.2d 1128; 250 Cal. Rptr. 598; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 171; 15 Media L. Rep. 2072
Prior history: Defendant convicted, Superior Court, Los Angeles County; conviction affirmed, 233 Cal. Rptr. 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987); sentence affirmed, 234 Cal. Rptr. 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987); review granted, 734 P.2d 562 (Ca. 1987)
Subsequent history: Stay denied, 488 U.S. 1311 (1989); cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1017 (1989)
Holding
California pandering statute did not criminalize the hiring of actors for nonobscene adult films.
Court membership
Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas
Associate Justices Marcus Kaufman, Stanley Mosk, Allan Broussard, Edward Panelli, David Eagleson, Anthony Kline (Court of Appeal justice, sitting by assignment)
Case opinions
Majority by: Kaufman
Joined by: Mosk, Broussard, Panelli, Kline
Concurring without separate opinion: Lucas, Eagleson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Cal. Penal Code ยงยง 266I, 647

California v. Freeman was the criminal prosecution of Harold Freeman, a producer and director of pornographic films, by the U.S. state of California. Freeman was arrested in 1987 for hiring adult actors, which the prosecution interpreted as pandering, as part of an attempt by California to shut down the pornographic film industry. The prosecution's interpretation was ultimately rejected on appeal by the California Supreme Court. Prior to this decision, pornographic movies had often been shot in secret locations. Freeman was initially convicted, and lost on appeal to the California Court of Appeal. The trial judge, however, thought jail would be an unreasonably harsh penalty for Freeman's conduct, and sentenced him to probation, despite the fact that this was explicitly contrary to the statute. The State appealed this sentence but lost. Freeman appealed to the California Supreme Court, which subsequently overturned his conviction, finding that the California pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but non-obscene performances. Freeman could only have been lawfully convicted of pandering if he had paid the actors for the purpose of sexually gratifying himself or the actors. The court relied upon the language of the statute for this interpretation, as well as the need to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment right to free speech. The court viewed Freeman's conviction as "a somewhat transparent attempt at an 'end run' around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws." The State of California unsuccessfully tried to have this judgment overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied a stay of the California Supreme Court's judgment, finding that its ruling was founded on an independent and adequate basis of state law. The full Court subsequently denied the petition for review. As a result of this precedent, the making of hardcore pornography was effectively legalized in California.

Personal life

Harold "Hal" Freeman was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois. He was married to Jean Freeman and had 2 daughters, Sheri and Cindy and a granddaughter, Katie and 2 grandsons named Benjamin and Matthew. He died in 1989 from Lung Cancer.

References

External links

View More Summaries on California v. Freeman
 
Ask any question on California v. Freeman and get it answered FAST!
Answer questions in BookRags Q&A and earn points toward
discounted or even FREE Study Guides and other BookRags products!
Learn more about BookRags Q&A
Copyrights
California v. Freeman from Wíkipedia. ©2006 by Wíkipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. View a list of authors or edit this article.

Article Navigation
Join BookRagslearn moreJoin BookRags




About BookRags | Customer Service | Report an Error | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy