Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Edwin WHORLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-15
Citations: 569 F.3d 211
Docket Number: No. 06-4288
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Edwin WHORLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 569
Pages: 211–214

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Edwin WHORLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-4288.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 15, 2009.
Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, Damon A. King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Charles Philip Rosenberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sapna Mirchandani, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, MD, Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, VA, Robert James Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Richmond, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Dwight Edwin Whorley, Glenville, WV, pro se.

Opinion:
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,
supporting the denial of rehearing en banc:
My colleague's dissenting position rests on his belief that the First Amendment protects concededly obscene e-mails because the e-mails "implicated no commercial interest and, although the e-mails described fantasies about sexual conduct involving children, the children referred to were imagined, not real." Yet, if we accept, as we must, the proposition that expression, regardless of its form, is protected by the First Amendment, we must likewise recognize the proposition that obscenity in any of those forms is not protected and may be regulated by the state. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115, 119, 93 S.Ct. 2680, 37 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973) ("Obscenity can, of course, manifest itself in conduct, in the pictorial representation of conduct, or in the written and oral description of conduct").
Despite my good colleague's misgivings, Whorley violated criminal statutes regulating obscenity, and his convictions may not be forgiven because his conduct was prompted by his sexual fantasies. Accordingly, we appropriately deny his motion for a rehearing en banc.