United States v. Thomas was one of the first criminal cases to ask a question the internet made unavoidable: when something posted in one place can be seen everywhere, whose rules apply? A California couple who ran a computer bulletin board were prosecuted in Tennessee and judged by the standards of the Memphis area, and in 1996 a federal appeals court upheld their convictions.
If an older article or encyclopedia sent you here, the original case summary from this site is preserved in the Internet Archive: view the archived page. You can also browse more early internet law cases.
What Happened
In the early 1990s, a husband and wife in Milpitas, California ran the Amateur Action Bulletin Board System, a members-only dial-up service that sold access to sexually explicit pictures and also shipped videotapes. Members paid a fee and called in by modem from around the country.
A postal inspector in Memphis, Tennessee joined the service under an assumed name, downloaded images and ordered tapes. In 1994, federal prosecutors charged the couple in Memphis with transmitting and shipping obscene material across state lines. A Memphis jury convicted them, and both were sentenced to prison.
What the Court Decided
Under the Supreme Court’s test for obscenity, a jury decides whether material is obscene by applying the standards of its local community. The couple argued that this made no sense online. They said a bulletin board operator cannot control who dials in from where, and that courts should use a new standard based on the online community instead of the place where a juror lives.
In January 1996, the federal appeals court for the Sixth Circuit rejected that argument and upheld the convictions. It pointed out that the couple screened members, knew this member lived in Tennessee and chose to give him access and ship tapes to him there. On those facts, the court said, it was fair to judge the material by the standards of the Memphis area. The court said it did not need to decide whether a different rule should apply where an operator has no control over where its material goes.
Why It Mattered
The case became a warning that putting material online could expose a business to the laws and standards of any place where it was received. Critics said it would push online speech toward the rules of the most restrictive community in the country, and the question of “community standards” came up again when the Supreme Court later reviewed federal laws aimed at protecting children online. The case is still taught as an early example of the internet colliding with laws written for a world of local stores and mailed packages.
Where Families Sue Social Media Companies Today
The same basic question, where a nationwide online company can be held responsible, matters in today’s lawsuits against social media companies. Families from across the country have brought claims against Meta, TikTok, Snap and Google, claiming their apps were designed to hook children and teens.
Most federal cases have been combined before one federal judge in Oakland, California, and many California cases are coordinated in Los Angeles state court. Families do not need to live in California to bring a claim. If your child was harmed, Doyle APC handles these claims together with experienced co-counsel. Learn who may qualify for compensation.
Common Questions
What was United States v. Thomas about?
A California couple who ran a members-only computer bulletin board were prosecuted in Memphis, Tennessee for sending obscene material to a member there. The case asked whether a jury in Tennessee could judge online material by local Tennessee standards.
What did the court decide?
In 1996, the Sixth Circuit upheld the convictions. Because the couple knew the member was in Tennessee and chose to give him access, the court found it fair to apply the community standards of the Memphis area.
Why is it called a “community standards” case?
Under the Supreme Court’s obscenity test, a jury applies the standards of its own community. The case showed how that rule could reach an online business anywhere in the country.
Do I have to live in California to sue a social media company?
No. Families from across the country have brought claims. Most federal cases are combined before one judge in Oakland, and many California cases are coordinated in Los Angeles.
Who runs this site now?
Doyle APC, a San Diego law firm that represents people nationwide in mass tort cases. Doyle APC handles social media addiction claims together with experienced co-counsel. Learn more about the firm.