Opinion ID: 2209739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: videotape as speech

Text: The State assigns as error that the Court of Appeals treated the videotape as speech protected by the First Amendment. The State argues that Harrold is depicted on the videotape engaging in nonexpressive conduct, which is without First Amendment protection. The State's argument is without merit. If Harrold had masturbated on a street corner rather than in a videotaped program, the State's argument might be worthy of consideration. It is well established, however, that videotape recordings are subject to First Amendment protection. See, e.g., New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 106 S.Ct. 1610, 89 L.Ed.2d 871 (1986); Main Street Movies v. Wellman, 251 Neb. 367, 557 N.W.2d 641 (1997). Moreover, the State's argument ignores the requirements of the very statute it utilized to prosecute Harrold. Harrold was convicted for distributing obscene material, in violation of § 28-813(1). Material, for purposes of that statute, is defined as including any picture, drawing, photograph, figure, image, motion picture ... television production, other pictorial representation or electric reproduction, recording transcription, mechanical or otherwise.... Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-807(7) (Reissue 1995). This definition clearly encompasses videotapes. As will be analyzed more completely below, the definition of obscene contained in § 28-807(10) is coextensive with the First Amendment standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), and developed in subsequent cases. Thus, since the State is required to satisfy First Amendment standards of both the U.S. Constitution and the Nebraska statutes, the State's assignment of error is without merit.