Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obscenity Standards 697
dark_requiem writes "The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it. The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little, aka Max Hardcore, for violating obscenity laws in Tampa, despite the fact that the 'obscene' material in question was produced and sold in California. From the article: 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities. In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime. ... Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole — the Middle District of Florida" — would view the material.'"
Well, you're doomed... (Score:0, Insightful)
...in the Land of The Free, corporations have a right to free speech so your constitution does not apply to you anymore, only to whom will financially benefit from that.
So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
So by that measure we should censor all pictures of women's faces as it violates the decency standards of Iran.
No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, I'm a Texan--we've got plenty of towns that would do.
Without a doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
The Appeals Court dropped the ball on this one. If a crime was committed in that backwoods locale, it should be the person who viewed the porn who is charged, because they're the ones who took the active step of bringing it 'into' the jurisdiction. Yeah, it's some pretty foul porn, by most standards, but it was the police who ordered the damn things and downloaded them, not some otherwise innocent person. Frankly, it's a mockery of the law to charge him with crimes in that jurisdiction.
"The Community" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay. Time for this to be ruled by the scotus. They've been pretty clear on "community standards" and it's about time the internet was defined as "a community." SCOTUS did not say obscenity is defined by the most prudish members of the community. You can't simply pick the 13 most uptight pricks in town for your jury. It's time for people to be given full responsibility for the speech that is tolerated in their own homes and not the freedom to rule everyone else's homes based on the redneck perversions of that backward few.
Entrapment?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.
Emphasis mine.
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
If they had of not actively done this, then no crime would have been committed.
(Of course IANAL etc).
Jehovah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland, but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.
How can people know what's legal/illegal in each and every bacwater community across a country as large as the US?
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
You poor chaps over the pond really do seem to have the most bizarre legal decisions made for you, sometimes.
Re:Horseshit (Score:3, Insightful)
A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, however, wrote that they "decline to follow the reasoning" of the California court.
You know this one is going to SCOTUS.
Finally law is on our side! (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you think, will RMS look good in black amish hat?
Entirely unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling is entirely unreasonable for two reasons:
(1) This effectively extends the jurisdiction of an community law to the entire country
(2) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every community
I don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable. It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country. I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to bring back (Score:4, Insightful)
Tar and feathering of stupid judges.
This will almost certainly be overturned but this court had to force the waste of millions of dollars anyway.
Sad, inconvenient truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, it isn't the first time the USoA has dragged someone from somewhere else (like, oh, another country on a different continent), and tried and convicted them for ``crimes'' that might be arguable at best under any applicable law, or not even committed near the North American continent, or both. So the country, so the county. If you'd like this changed, don't stop at the county level, fix the country too. People the world over will thank you.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I defer to someone smart than me - "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
You could also apply common sense.
Yes there's nudity and porn on the internet. So what? Nobody's forcing you to type playboy.com into your computer, so why is there a need for government to regulate these websites? *The government does not need to be involved.* The government should not be censoring the internet. At all. Let people censor themselves, by simply not going to sites they find objectionable.
They only reason to censor the internet, is to exert morality upon other people, and I find that to be tyrannical. I don't want Georgia's primitive, backwards morality enforced upon me or any other non-Georgian citizen.
Re:The result is (Score:3, Insightful)
The real result is that geolocation filters will become more prevalent, with content providers making it so their website are only viewable from the states/countries they intend to market their stuff to (and wherfe they know their content isn't illegal).
It's highly annoying. It's already pretty enraging when you come across a website that pretty much tells you "fuck you, this content can only be viewed from the usa".
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you please get the state right? The laws/police/prosecution are from Tampa, FLORIDA. The only way Georgia comes into this is that the case made it to Federal District court, and the 11th District happened to be in Atlanta. Georgia isn't doing squat to you -- rant about Florida.
Re:Without a doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
> It shows a blatant disregard for how internet works.
I guess the way internet works is irrelevant for some people. They make laws and decisions according to the way they think it *should* work. ;-))
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no imagination!
How about filing a lawsuit in some strict muslim community, where depictations of human beings and music is considered obscene?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_music#Permissibility_of_music [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art [wikipedia.org] ("the depiction of the human form is idolatry and thereby a sin against Allah, forbidden in the Qur'an")
The court said "the strictest community". Nobody said it had to be a community based on the Christian worldview.
Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to wonder if the 11th would have been so quick to insist that the strictest local community standards apply in every case if non-pornographic material was involved. Hypothetical case in point:
1) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring particularly inflammatory anti-abortion speech as "obscene", "inciting to riot", etc.
2) Arrest warrants are immediately issued throughout the south-eastern US for various high profile clergymen (e.g. Pat Robertson), and other pro-life firebrands as various pieces of inflammatory pro-life literature (e.g. videotapes) are purchased and received by members of the local police.
3) Said individuals are arrested, extradited to California, tried, convicted, sentenced, and begin their prison sentences.
4) During this time, they appeal their sentences through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the members of the 11th Court suddenly "switched team jerseys" and were sitting on the bench of the 9th Circuit court, would they uphold these convictions?
Using the reasoning they applied against Mr. Little (the defendant), they would. However, if you believe that these same judges would actually choose to follow this reasoning, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Normally, I would expect that the Supreme Court would (eventually) backhand the 11th for such an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment, but given the recent much-broader-than-necessary ruling on campaign finance reform, I suspect that they'll find a way not to.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO both the European Union and the United States need the following amendment added to their Lisbon Treaty and Constitution, respectively, (and rewritten to fit the needs of each continent):
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member States declare the U.S. Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050. *[This is called a Constitutional majority in legal parlance.]
.
.
.
I envision this amendment to be very useful in overturning, for example the $2500 fine to be levied against citizens who don't have health insurance. That law, once Obama signs it, will be clearly unconsitutional and then the 25 State Legislatures can overturn it.
In the European Union, such an amendment could be used to block the EU Government from exercising powers never granted by the Lisbon Treaty. As things stand now, there is virtually no limit to what the EU Government can control.
Re:Entrapment?? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're say you do and you're not posting from prison, you're a liar and a hypocrite.
Re:No problem (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's two things:
First, confusion of net neutrality (a good thing) with the "fairness doctrine" (eh, not so much). Whether the talking head himself is confused, or is just confusing his listeners, is up for debate.
Second, NIH syndrome. The perception is that it's an idea proposed by the democrats, so it must automatically be opposed, regardless of the content.
Remember, people like Rush, Beck, Michael Moore, Hannity, etc. are rabble-rousers. Their job is to say outrageous things to get people stirred up, which makes them listen to the show and (key point here) brings in money (whether through ticket sales or advertising dollars). They're just like Howard Stern, but talking politics rather than sex.
Re:Hey US court! (Or anyone else acting like that. (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think, you got any power at all to rule over the Internet?
Well the fact that Max Hardcore is behind bars should be your first clue.
I don't agree with the court ruling, but they certainly have the power - and are (ab)using it.
Anything less than a Burka is obscene (Score:3, Insightful)
Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene then all photos etc. on the internet not showing a burka should be considered pornographic. I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.
Re:Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.
Seriously, obscenity? How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts? Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders. Check out those sexy ankles!
Re:The result is (Score:5, Insightful)
That pictures of women who are not covered top to toe are considered porn.
You had better not be making any drawings (Canada, Australia) of uncovered women, too. And make sure (Australia) that their breasts are very large. Or you are a "sex offender". How about we go and cover up all those naked people in paintings and chisel the genitals from sculptures, while we're at it?
I myself find myself offended by a particular Dutch painter called Rembrandt. What a pervert. All the nudes he ever painted should be destroyed, and his "collectors" and any of his surviving kin thrown in jail.
The Porn Chasers (Score:4, Insightful)
There goes another huge waste of our tax dollars. Now that we have had an expensive witch hunt we get the thrill of paying huge money to lock these guys up for no reason at all.
And just why should the most conservative county get to hold power over all of us. How about letting the most l;iberal county declare when something is pornographic in nature?
And I live near the center of Florida and nothing at all is offensive to me porn wise. So these judges are not representing the people at all. They are catering to the lowest element of dried up dullards. Sometimes I understand the loonies who go off and gun down people at random. It's because of nonsense like this courts rulings.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:4, Insightful)
No more Budweiser Super Bowl Ads? (Score:4, Insightful)
So does this make it illegal for alcoholic beverage ads to be broadcast in dry counties?
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes the nude photos crossed state borders, but it's not federal law that is being violated. It's Florida's obscenity law, and Californians are not subject to Florida law (no legislation without representation). The U.S. court should have thrown-out the case as invalid and nonjurisdictional.
Otherwise, if Florida laws CAN cross borders and be enforced in other states, then what happens next? Florida bans alcohol (for example) and alcohol is automatically banned for all 50 states???
No, no, no.
If Florida bans alcohol, then that law applies only inside their border. Likewise if Florida bans obscenity/nudity, then that law Also applies only inside their border. Florida is welcome to block the importation of alcohol or obscenity, but NOT to exert their control over other States, or sue other states' citizens.
Re:Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally someone who adresses the matter.
It's not that these laws are used against someone who is not affected by them (should not be), it's that these laws exist in the first place. There are a few laws concerning sexual activities that make sense (like laws against rape), but for the only reason that they also fit the bill for a different crime: Harming someone else's body against his will. That's basically why rape is (and should be) illegal, not because it's "obscene" or "indecent". It's because it hurts someone who does not like that.
What is "obscenity"? And why is it not allowed? I could see how it should be illegal to shove it in my face and make me watch it (but not because it's about sex but because it's about something close to torture or coercion, just like it should not be allowed to force me to look at pictures of blown up bodies or force me to watch a medical operation, or force me to do anything against my will). But the existance? And having people look at it? How could you sensibly explain that this should be illegal?
The law should serve one, and only one, purpose: To make our coexistance possible and "fair". A law against me stealing from you makes sense. Else you'd have to watch your belongings every waking hour. A law against killing someone makes sense too. Hell, everyone wants to live and I wouldn't want to watch my back every time I go out on the street without my gang of friends who protect me (and mug everyone around in the process). That's what the law should be about: To make sure your life, belongings and if you want to your "mental" health is upheld. If you willingly relinquish any such protection, the law has no right to keep you from it. I can't see why there should be a law that protects me against my will. A law that protects me against seeing "indecent" porn is like a law that protects me from giving away my gem collection to someone or allowing someone to kick me in the nuts. I wouldn't do either of the three, probably, but I can't see why it should be illegal to do any of them.
Re:Entrapment?? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like buying some weed in the Netherlands, smuggling it into Germany and then claiming the Dutch coffee shop broke the law.
(only using weed here because I couldn't think of a car analogy)
Who gets to decide which judges are stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who gets to decide which judges are stupid?
Not that I disagree on -this- decision being 'stupid' (on the face of it, I haven't read the judge's motivations and whatnot), but I can't help but disagree with your idea there.
If I simply disagree with a judge, deeming them 'stupid', does that mean I should be allowed (at least in the eye of the public) to tar and feather them?
Wouldn't that undermine one of the principles - however much they're ignored - of a legal system? If every judge making a decision would have to fear being tarred and feathered just because *somebody* may disagree with the decision, wouldn't that be a Bad Thing(TM)?
Net result (Score:3, Insightful)
Porn sites in the US will smell the java and move abroad, then sell their services from there (and pay tax there). Some bum on Aruba beach will become the figurehead CEO and business continues as usual. Case closed.
What? What else do you expect the result of this will be? That these "indecent" and "obscene" pages cease to exist?
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
But if the person GETTING that material, from whatever, is IN a place where it is illegal, then maybe he is violating the law... the supplier really has nothing to do with it.
I mean, since they are treating these bits and bytes like tangible objects ("pornography" as though it were an explicit magazine), then it has to come from somewhere and go from somewhere. If it is legal in the place where it is "manufactured" or distributed, then the manufacturer and distributor have broken no law. But the purchaser, or receiver, might still be breaking the law by "taking" it into his own area... just as if it were a magazine.
As a real-world example: I can go to a different state or an Indian reservation and buy fireworks that are not legal in my area. And I can buy them legally... there is no law against them in the place where I buy them. So the manufacturers and distributors have done no wrong. But if I then take those fireworks back to my own area, where they are illegal, I have committed whatever crime (or probably infraction) it is... the manufacturer and distributor have still done no wrong.
I believe that to be a reasonable and fair standard. That way, communities can still have standards if they wish, and they can enforce them on their own community if they wish, but they don't get to judge people in distant communities by those standards.
Great Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
The setting of this precedent means that any grouping of people can hold anything they find objectionable on the internet hostage. This means that Google can hold Microsoft Hostage, Microsoft can object to Apple's ads and bearded Linux ogres can object to Bill Gates taking a bath more than once a month.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's already in the U.S. Constitution. It's called "passing a vote of the Senate." If one-half of the states, through their Senate representatives, object to a law for any reason, then it's as if the law never existed. Because it never did.
The senators represent the interests of the states, plain and simple. If you feel your senator is not adequately representing the interests of your state, then that's your and your state's problem and you can solve it at the ballot box.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually not a bad scenario the judge missed. Many communities will have opposite views in regards to some content, or could even publish strict laws on site organization, content that must or must not be included, and these laws could easily be worked to make national sites illegal and local sites for local businesses legal. In another part of the country, laws could equally apply in reverse.
My personal take? sale or shipping of a physical product across a state line, or providing a service in general should not be subject to local laws at all, only national and interstate commerce regulations. However, a locality could pass a law making it illegal for it;s local residents to ACCESS such material, or to request services. The only think that might be possible is for a locality to prevent the shipping of a product to it;s residents, or taking payment from addresses based in the local area. However, should such a system be applied to interstate commerce, the company effected should have the right to seek fees from the local community related to altering their process for tracking such potential purchases and denying them, such not to run afoul of the law. Any local law that does not provide a service to such companies should not be enforcible in interstate commerce.
The only case I can see is where a physical product itself is illegal to posses in a state (not local, a whole state). For example, NJ forbids radar detectors. Most states forbid cigarettes crossing state lines. These products should be on the manufacturer to document to their resellers which states they are and are not legal for sale in, and the resellers then and only then could be held liable (if the manufacturer never clarified, then sue the manufacturer). For access to content on line that may be "objectionable", and for where a fee is paid for access, the site may be asked to request "are you located in one of the following municipalities:?" and if so refuse your membership (or get this data from the credit card used for payment). However, since there's no manufacturer, just a publisher, it should be up to the State or local entity to provide sufficient notice to the publisher to implement such a system if they are not based in the local state, and to cover the costs of that implementation if it is not a state law.
Re:Without a doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are just enough people in some places that see things they dont like and declare "there should be a law against that" , instead of just ignoring what they dont like. When a critical mass of these people get together we end up with crazy laws.
Whenever I hear someone say " there should be a law against that " , I want to punch them in the face, but there is a law against that ...
Re:Entirely unreasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I can now charge everyone with a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
Change step one to:
1) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring judicial decisions that infringe upon free speech are obscene.
Have them arrest the judges, let them testify: they'll either have to admit guilt, or do a 180 on their own ruling. I very much doubt they will do the former, and the latter should provide sound legal reason as to why the original ruling was incorrect.
dont worry (Score:2, Insightful)
The ruling will probably be struck down on interstate commerce grounds.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem with your theory is that you're dictating what people can and can't watch IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME.
This whole community standard nonsense to allow cenorship is wrong. My neighbors should have absolutely NO say on the content of books, movies, music, or video games I play in my own home.
Honestly.. why is censorship ok if its your neighbors deciding what to censor?
As far as your products crossing state lines goes.. that's a specious argument as well, since states are NOT allowed to favor commerce in their own state over another state. Its also Unconstitutional, just like censorship.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Apple community and Linux community thinks Microsoft is an obscenenity. Redmond thinks Apple and Linux are obscenities. The video game community considers Jack Thompson to be an obscenity. The PETA community thinks eating meat is obscene.
The Baptists consider dance to be obscene.
I think the court's ruling is obscene.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably never ocurred to them that what they were doing was illegal in Florida, but it's quite simple to set up the website so that it doesn't accept orders with a shipping address in that state. Having read TFA, we know that we're not talking about downloaded digital photos/videos, we're talking about physical media that was ordered and shipped through the mail. :)
The question is, should it be a website's burden to know every local law? Where do you draw the line?
Perhaps it is reasonable to expect websites keep track of state laws that pertain to their business. That's still 49 additional states to keep track of, though, plus DC, the Virgin Islands, and other US territories. Not really an easy task, especially for smaller businesses.
In this case, though, it's not even a state law, it's a local (Tampa) law. Should every company who seeks to sell online be expected to know the laws of every county in the nation? Every city? Every township or municipality? What if they give an address in an adjacent town (which the USPO will adjust to deliver correctly) with different laws? Can you even give an estimate of the ammount of time it would take to research that many local laws and be certain your shipment will not violate some local statute?
I don't see how a small business can be reasonably expected to comply with all laws simultaneously, only that they act in good faith that the person ordering the material is legally allowed to do so by their local laws.
Re:Without a doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like a viable business plan to me.
Quick! Tell me exactly what is considered obscene by Florida law so I can filter it!
Oh wait, you can't, because the law is basically "whatever we can get 12 prudes to claim they're offended by after you've done it", just like every other obscenity law ever.
Obscenity laws are pure bullshit.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem with your theory is that you're dictating what people can and can't watch IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME.
It is not legal to watch child porn in the privacy of your own home. That said, I think this judge is smoking crack even hearing the case, and the jury should be shot.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really? No sympathy even though the case is bogus? What about the part where everyone involved is a WILLING participant? It might be gross, but everyone involved (including people who purchased the videos) did so of their own free will.
Re:Who gets to decide which judges are stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who gets to decide which judges are stupid?
Well, ideally what would happen is that when someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution has been found to violate that Constitution, they'd be removed from their position. Sadly, there's no punishment for violating the so-called "supreme law" of the land.
Re:Without a doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it makes it any better. Don't they have real problems to worry about in Florida? Have they run out of criminals to chase so now they need to chase people for non-crimes?
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:4, Insightful)
What year is it again?
Re:Entrapment?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually no ... he probably doesn't report other people for minor infractions; thus no hipocrisy.
He abandoned his friend because the friend arrests/fines others for minor infractions but commits them himself with impunity.
Re:Entrapment?? (Score:1, Insightful)
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
So it's basically one notch less illegal than planting drugs and weapons on innocent people the cops want to see put in jail.
Only difference is this material is perfectly legal, where as planted drugs typically are not.
Same old routine by the good ole boys
Re:Simple Solution make a .XXX internet extension (Score:3, Insightful)
How does that work for non-pr0n sites where some or all of content might still be deemed "adult"?
How does that work for user-generated sites with a range of material under a single domain?
which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions
And there is one problem - you still have a situation where things are censored. It may be on a more local level, but at the same time, this system makes it an awful lot easier for things to be blocked, even if the end user doesn't want that.
Re:Entirely unreasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable. It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country. I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.
It would be interesting to see a lawsuit filed against Tampa for unconstitutionally disenfranchising citizens of the United States who are subject to its laws. If the laws of Tampa can be applied against any person regardless of where they are in the United States, then it should follow that every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections in Tampa, and the city government must send election material and provide for absentee voting to all eligible voters, and maintain current and accurate voter registration rolls.
Re:Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
But but if censorship is unconstitutional then how is banning childporn ok? (Seriously here) This state views obscene acts as... bad. So they not only banned them but banned the filmed material (to reduce the market apparently). Exact same as childporn. So... what's the difference?
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I understand why child porn is illegal (exploitation of children, probable rape of children,etc.) it boggles me that an picture of a cartoon child naked is porn.
It also seems incorrect that an artistic picture of a fictional, non-existent child is illegal (since there was no exploitation, rape, etc.).
And you have all those gray lines where the subject looks 13 but is 18 or is 15 and looks 18.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the constitution is concerned, child porn itself wouldn't be illegal. Producing it could be, because its production violates the rights of the child(ren). Much like a snuff film. Anybody involved in the production of the snuff film would be guilty of a crime, but people who actually have a copy and didn't directly participate in the production of the film wouldn't be held responsible.
Granted, that's just one way of viewing things. The SCOTUS has somehow inferred an "obscenity" exemption in the first amendment, that I can't find in my copy of the constitution. And the things that are deemed "obscene and thus censorable" changes over time as well.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm going to say is not a popular view, and let me be clear that people who hurt children, and those who aid or support such harm, need to be removed from polite society. And let me be clear that personally, I find the very idea that someone would enjoy watching images that depicted such harm, to be disgusting and revolting.
However: there is no "child porn" exception to the First Amendment. The fact that an image was produced by harming another human being (for example, a lot of the stuff at rotten.com) does not mean that the state has legitimate power to criminalize the mere possession of such images. And "child porn" laws go far beyond that, criminalizing made-up, wholely fictitious images. These laws are based on the notion that these images will cause bad thoughts which will lead directly to bad actions: they are nothing more than "thoughtcrime" laws.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Should society and the government have the authority to ban videos and literature detailing weapon manufacture and security-breaking techniques?
Re:Without a doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw an interview with a woman who'd been in a Max Hardcore film. She said she'd been in other porn, more-or-less enjoyed the work, and assumed that working for M. H. would be similar. So she started shooting a film for him, but things got more brutal than she expected, more quickly than she could really understand how to react. Apparently it was a bad enough experience to convince her to leave the industry for good.
I wasn't there and I didn't see the video so I don't know how all this went down. But I can imagine scenarios where someone agrees to shoot a porn but then things get out of control while they're in a vulnerable position. Still, as you said, it seems to me that the real crime is not the filming of this or the distribution of the film ("obscenity"); it's the treatment of the woman (assault/rape).
As an aside, I don't really understand this trend in super-hard-core porn... On the one hand, "to each his own," but on the other... not even the men in this stuff find it pleasant; they're all popping Viagra just to keep themselves going, gritting their teeth, and hoping for it to be over soon themselves...
But that's the problem with the First Amendment, isn't it? If you defend it you end up siding with unsavory characters; if you don't then it's permanently eroded; you're dammed either way.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
First we made exploitation of actual kids illegal, and that was a *very* good thing. But then we banned pictures of it for sale. Also probably a good thing, stop peddlers. But then we banned sharing the pictures without money involved. Perhaps a good thing, it could be damaging to the victim to have those pictures out there forever. But then we banned cartoon drawings. And now they are just getting crazy. You can already see the next step in Australia, where there isn't even an artistic exemption (so Renaissance art, cherubs, etc are considered CP there); and now they just banned any real porn where the actress has a size A cup, or looks under 25. Yes, even if they are a legal adult, they don't want someone thinking they might possibly be underage. Next up, they'll probably want to push that age back to 40 or so. And who would want to watch that?
The end result and ulterior motive of the groups pushing these laws isn't banning CP, it's banning all porn, period. They're just taking a small, incremental approach to their end goal.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Should society and the government have the authority to ban videos and literature detailing weapon manufacture and security-breaking techniques?
The question is not "should it?" but "does it?"
The Federal Government in the United States does not, unless you mean something by the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." that is quite different from what I mean by them.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happened to the postal inspector who *obtained* and *distributed* child porn? And to the people he got it from?
This sounds so twisted: I'm imagining someone so hellbent on getting someone arrested that he makes his own children do nude photoshoots and then sends them out intended to get someone in trouble... disgusting.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:4, Insightful)
The difficulty arises if images are shown to provoke and promote illegal behaviour.
Where's the difficulty? If the KKK wants to publish racist drivel, if NWA wants to write songs about killing cops, if the Mormons want to peddle homophobia, I'm going to stand back and be proud that I live in a country where they can.
As long as (1) nobody forces me to listen to them and (2) nobody forces them to shut up, I don't see a problem. For the people who actually engage in illegal behavior, we have system in place to handle them.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:2, Insightful)
After reading your attached link, my only thought is that this guy, "Robert" is an idiot. At every point this guy is presented with opportunities to not be an idiot, instead he gives away his protection from searches, admits he received and then held onto real child porn, and failed to challenge numerous [dubiously legal] actions by various entities and persons.
A few little tips if you are ever in this situation.
1) If you opened up such a package (or your wife did), immediately notify the police. Then drive the package to the nearest police office and leave it there.
2) NEVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN ANY OF ITS FORMS! If someone asks "hey, would you please sign this form allowing me to search your home. The answer is NO. There is no exception.
3) If you are ever in this situation and someone sends a illegal package. File charges against the person who sent you the package! In this instance the "postal inspector" violated multiple laws, both Federal and State, in possessing the contents of the package and then sending the package.
As for how the 11th Circuit case that this /. article is covering will turn out in the end? My 2cents is that this case will almost certainly get overturned. But either way, I don't live in 11th circuit jurisdiction so yay for me.
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>1) If you opened up such a package [with child porn or obscene material], immediately notify the police. Then drive the package to the nearest police office and leave it there.
>>>
Many citizens who receive porn or drugs in the mail, when they do the honest thing and tell the police, end up arrested for possession. You. Cannot. Trust. Police. Or the government in general. Better to destroy the evidence and pretend you never received anything.
"You have the right to remain silent....." - USE IT. You also have the right to refuse searches. No warrant; no search. No warrant; no search.
Re:Entrapment?? (Score:1, Insightful)
so really its the investigators that should be arrested and tried because THEY committed the crime (of bringing indecent material into that jurisdiction)
Re:So Iran's standards then? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, sadly that's not the end goal. That's just another step. Banning porn criminalizes a third of the population. Banning drugs criminalizes another huge chunk. And so on. The end goal is for everyone to be a criminal so that nobody can speak up without fear of arrest for some crime. The inherent endgame for government is tyranny, and the only thing preventing any government from degrading into tyranny is a strong, informed population who won't stand for it.