Porno Ban Is Assailed: Condition Imposed on Alleged Rapist Called Improper
Dublin Core
Title
Porno Ban Is Assailed: Condition Imposed on Alleged Rapist Called Improper
Subject
Pornography--Law and legislation
Pornography--Law and legislation--Social aspects--United States
First amendment cases
Description
Newspaper article analyzing the legality of a judges ruling to ban an alleged rapist from owning or viewing pornography. Michael Mello and other legal professionals give insight into the case.
Creator
Strohnmeyer, Sarah
Source
Newspaper
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1993-11-29
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
2 jpgs
300 DPI
Language
English
Coverage
NH
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
CHEALSEA – when Judge Mary Miles Teachout last month ordered alleged rapist David C. Green not to possessor view pornography as a requirement of his release from jail, she imposed a condition that some experts find troubling.
Vermont American Civil Liberties Union lawyers and other legal experts say they have never seen such a condition before and they have problems with it. For one thing, teachout appears to be linking the alleged crime – sexual assault – with a medium Green viewed on the day he attacked his wife.
“Take it out of the realm of sex,” suggested Vermont ACLU Executive Director Leslie Williams. “What if you rob a bank after watching a movie about robbing a bank? Its assuming a connection that I’m not sure is justified.”
“It’s a first for me,” said Vermont Law School Professor Michael A. Mello, who teaches criminal law. He said judges have the right to impose a number of conditions of release that limit liberties as long as those conditions can be “rationally related to the offense” and do not directly violate the constitution.
“I think it’s unconstitutional,” said Mello of Teachout’s order. “it feels to me unconstitutional.”
The crime of which Green is accused, however, is a supremely violent one. According to records filed in Vermont District Court in Chelsea, Green, 22, allegedly repeatedly raped his wife, who had told him she wanted a divorce, on Oct. 21, after handcuffing her in his car. Supposedly armed with a gun that he did not show her, Green took her to a secluded area, sexually assaulted her, and then took her back to their apartment where he allegedly raped her again.
“He told me that earlier in the day he had rented a movie and had masturbated while watching the movie,” his wife wrote in an affidavit submitted to police. Neither the affidavit or other police records indicate what kind of movie it was.
Green, of Lebanon, was arrested by Vermont State Police and charged with five counts of aggravated sexual assault plus a count of kidnapping on Oct. 25. He is in the southeast Regional Correctional Facility in Woodstock, unable to make bail.
David Putter, who chairs the Vermont ACLU’s legal panel, said that the problem with Teachout’s pornography condition is that it is essentially unenforceable because it’s so broad. He noted that Vermont has no legal definition of pornography – a concept usually defined by local mores. Most states that have defined pornography have kept the parameters vague.
“The bottom line is that while it may very well be for the state to criminalize or prohibit certain types of speech content, which would fall under the rubrick of obscenity,” Putter said. “The state can’t prohibit speech unless it clearly defines the prohibited speech and that speech falls within a lawful definition of obscenity.”
“one of the traditional problems with obscenity is having a clear definition,” he continued. “If (Teachout) has not specified what particular guidelines govern, then the order would be a violation not only of the First Amendment but of the Vermont Constitution as well.”
But what about the fact that many everyday rights – such as drinking alcohol, soeaking and being free to associate with whomever one wants – are often yanked when someone is released on bail?
Mello said the difference lies in the material nature of what Teachout is prohibiting.
“it’s different from other kinds of conditions of parole and probation, maybe because it has to do with communication, with books and the modern information highway whose incarnation is movies,” Mello said. “What bothers me is it’s the suppression of ideas . . . it infringes on the marketplace of ideas. It has a potentially chilling effect.”
Williams, who is not a lawyer, put Teachout’s order in lay terms. “This is unreasonable. To forbid someone to read something or look at something is going a little too far.”
Teachout, who, until recently, was the judge in Windsor County Family Court, could not be reached for comment. However, she has declined to discuss her bench rulings with the press in the past.
Green did not return messages left for him at the prison. His lawyer, Matthew Levine of White River Junction, could not be reached for comment this weekend.
If Teachout did impose the condition because of what Green’s wife said in the affidavit, then she wouldn’t be the first legal authority to link pornography with a sex crime.
Seven years ago then Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography linked hard-core porn to sex crimes. The commission’s report concluded that “substantial exposure to sexually violent materials . . . bears causal relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and possibly to unlawful acts of sexual violence.”
Vermont American Civil Liberties Union lawyers and other legal experts say they have never seen such a condition before and they have problems with it. For one thing, teachout appears to be linking the alleged crime – sexual assault – with a medium Green viewed on the day he attacked his wife.
“Take it out of the realm of sex,” suggested Vermont ACLU Executive Director Leslie Williams. “What if you rob a bank after watching a movie about robbing a bank? Its assuming a connection that I’m not sure is justified.”
“It’s a first for me,” said Vermont Law School Professor Michael A. Mello, who teaches criminal law. He said judges have the right to impose a number of conditions of release that limit liberties as long as those conditions can be “rationally related to the offense” and do not directly violate the constitution.
“I think it’s unconstitutional,” said Mello of Teachout’s order. “it feels to me unconstitutional.”
The crime of which Green is accused, however, is a supremely violent one. According to records filed in Vermont District Court in Chelsea, Green, 22, allegedly repeatedly raped his wife, who had told him she wanted a divorce, on Oct. 21, after handcuffing her in his car. Supposedly armed with a gun that he did not show her, Green took her to a secluded area, sexually assaulted her, and then took her back to their apartment where he allegedly raped her again.
“He told me that earlier in the day he had rented a movie and had masturbated while watching the movie,” his wife wrote in an affidavit submitted to police. Neither the affidavit or other police records indicate what kind of movie it was.
Green, of Lebanon, was arrested by Vermont State Police and charged with five counts of aggravated sexual assault plus a count of kidnapping on Oct. 25. He is in the southeast Regional Correctional Facility in Woodstock, unable to make bail.
David Putter, who chairs the Vermont ACLU’s legal panel, said that the problem with Teachout’s pornography condition is that it is essentially unenforceable because it’s so broad. He noted that Vermont has no legal definition of pornography – a concept usually defined by local mores. Most states that have defined pornography have kept the parameters vague.
“The bottom line is that while it may very well be for the state to criminalize or prohibit certain types of speech content, which would fall under the rubrick of obscenity,” Putter said. “The state can’t prohibit speech unless it clearly defines the prohibited speech and that speech falls within a lawful definition of obscenity.”
“one of the traditional problems with obscenity is having a clear definition,” he continued. “If (Teachout) has not specified what particular guidelines govern, then the order would be a violation not only of the First Amendment but of the Vermont Constitution as well.”
But what about the fact that many everyday rights – such as drinking alcohol, soeaking and being free to associate with whomever one wants – are often yanked when someone is released on bail?
Mello said the difference lies in the material nature of what Teachout is prohibiting.
“it’s different from other kinds of conditions of parole and probation, maybe because it has to do with communication, with books and the modern information highway whose incarnation is movies,” Mello said. “What bothers me is it’s the suppression of ideas . . . it infringes on the marketplace of ideas. It has a potentially chilling effect.”
Williams, who is not a lawyer, put Teachout’s order in lay terms. “This is unreasonable. To forbid someone to read something or look at something is going a little too far.”
Teachout, who, until recently, was the judge in Windsor County Family Court, could not be reached for comment. However, she has declined to discuss her bench rulings with the press in the past.
Green did not return messages left for him at the prison. His lawyer, Matthew Levine of White River Junction, could not be reached for comment this weekend.
If Teachout did impose the condition because of what Green’s wife said in the affidavit, then she wouldn’t be the first legal authority to link pornography with a sex crime.
Seven years ago then Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography linked hard-core porn to sex crimes. The commission’s report concluded that “substantial exposure to sexually violent materials . . . bears causal relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and possibly to unlawful acts of sexual violence.”
Original Format
Newspaper Article
Vol. No./Issue No.
Volume 42: Number 161
Contributor of the Digital Item
Carter, Jacob
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Strohnmeyer, Sarah, “Porno Ban Is Assailed: Condition Imposed on Alleged Rapist Called Improper,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/151.