Ashcroft was just a tool. Dobson, Falwell and Wildmon are the ones who want to censor us. They never left. And a censorship run is a very easy bone for Rove and Bush to toss them while they continue to screw their constituents financially.
Fair enough, but what about people like me? I never saw the inside of a porn store until I was 18, yet I had seen plenty of porn. I did it the old fashioned way (older brother’s sock drawer) and via the internet. That was before peer-to-peer became popular. Trust me: very few minors are going to the porn store. You can get better for cheaper online. All you are doing is penalizing (huh huh penal) and needlessly nettling kosher adults.
I can’t do that. The correct answer is “A and/or B, depending on who is defining what’s obscene.”
I guarantee you that some things I find obscene are legal, and some things the Falwell / Dobson crowd find obscene are not.
It’s a trick question. The point is, things don’t need to be protected by the first amendment alone. The are other points to be had, such as the fact that obscenity is not legally defined (U.S. v. Extreme Associates.), despite wishful thinking/rulings to the contrary, or that banning depictions of consensual acts serves no gov. interest, amoung many other reasons.
I’m not trying to challenge you or defend Bush, ITRc, but despite my attempts to follow both campaigns, I don’t recall him promising this. Any links? Thanks.
Evil I used your letter with a couple of alterations (nothing major, just grammar things) and sent it to Obama, Durbin and Scharkowsky as below:
This isn’t anything new.
Bush has long pledged to “start enforcing obsenity laws.” In his mind, there are enough obsenity laws on the books to start start shutting people down. The previous administrations have simply not been doing their duty by enforcing them.
He (or his “obscenity czar”, which was appointed a while ago) has already made some harrassment lawsuits against mom-and-pop style organizations. I think the idea is to make life as hard for small porn businesses as possible. They’ve also passed some serious laws that only serve to harrass businesses- like the law requiring that all porn businesses keep copies of their actor’s ID’s for perpetuaity or twelve years after the business closes or else risk federal prison time (imagine- your hard drive crashes ten years after you get out of the business and suddenly the feds are at your door).
. . . Heh-heh . . . He said “tool” . . .
Scott:
You have cited a Federal District Court case. That case does not make law, and binds no one except the parties to it. Moreoever, since the case has been appealed to the Third Circuit, it doesn’t even bind them.
Would you care to cite any precedential case law in support of your position?
I’m currently in tears from reading this… I sure hope the conservative version of Michael Moore doesn’t interrupt your internet porn session to interview you ! 
From both historical usage and Supreme Court precedent, not all forms of expression are entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. Examples include “fighting words” (not speech in the meaning of the 1st Amendment), advertisements (speech, but afforded less protection), and obscenity (not speech).
As to why that is, to oversimplify, obscene materials do not, and do not intend, to convey a message. It is the free dissemination of ideas that is intended to be protected by the 1st Amendment. This distinction is why, for a long time, porn movies would start off with an actor in a doctor’s jacket introducing a visual representation of a case study in nyphomania - a dodge to be able to claim the film was conveying ideas.
No, something that is not explicitly protected by the first amendment is not per se illegal. However, if it is not protected, it is permissible for the legislature to make it illegal.
As for what distinguishes pornography from obscenity, it is “community standards” - the community knows it when it sees it.
I can’t answer for Bricker, but the mere fact that someone explains the current state of the law does not mean that said person agrees with the state of the law. It merely means that said person knows what the law is.
Sua
One of the worrisome aspects of this will be the attempted application of the community standards of East Podunk, Arkansas to the entire nation.
Um, no. First off, the Fed did not decide to leave the definition of obscenity up to local government. Instead, in Miller, the Supreme Court determined that the definition of obscenity is dependent, in part, on the prevailing standards of the community in question. IOW, a Penthouse would not be considered obscene in New York City, where they are distributed, free, to 3rd graders, but may be considered obscene in Provo, Utah. Note, the issue is “community standards”, not “laws enacted by local government”. Laws enacted by local government may be evidence of community standards, but they do not set community standards.
Second, the fact that local community standards have to be taken into account in determining what is obscene does not in any way diminish the power of the federal government to criminalize and prosecute obscenity, if it wants to. It simply has to, when prosecuting a pornographer, demonstrate that the offending material transgresses the standards of the community in which the prosecution takes place. IOW, the feds aren’t going to be bringing many prosecutions in Las Vegas.
Sua
Well, yes and no. In the old days, Hustler could only be prosecuted where Hustler chose to distribute its magazine. That’s still the standard for magazines, DVDs, etc. But the internet does cause problems for pornographers, simply because it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent your materials from being downloaded in East Podunk. To that extent, Podunk’s standards could end up being applied nationwide.
Sua
So if I were living in East Podunk where the word “Belgium” is considered obscene, and a radio station in the next city/county/state utters the word “Belgium” (because it’s not obscene there), and my fragile little ears hear it, could I get that station punished as a result?
For a group of folks who keep harping on “personal responsibility,” the inability of conservatives to find the “off” switch continues to amaze me.
Well, in your example, the threshhold question would probably be what the FCC had to say about it; their standards are considerably higher than merely proscribing obscenity. They can punish conduct which is not legally obscene. Of course, their punishment is not criminal in nature.
It could be worse. At least they won’t be prying your hand from your cold, dead penis. That would be embarrassing (not to mention time to get Viagra)
Peace - DESK
So what happens when the servers and the transactions all happen offshore? Offshoring services is nothing new, plenty of bandwidth. Can the prosecute use if they can’t get to the distributor? IIRC, this is how gambling sites are being run.
I studied this a long time ago, so my memory may be faulty, but personal possession and “use” (heh, heh) of obscene materials is not criminal. (An exception is kiddie porn, but that is treated very differently, in consitutional terms, than mainstream porn). So, an offshore server is safe, unless the govmint can convince the offshore government to criminalize the conduct - and, of course, so long as the owners/managers of the offshore obscenity server don’t visit the U.S.
Sua
I’m not sure if that’s true, Bricker - keeping in mind that I know nothing of this area professionally. But I don’t think that the FCC “occupies the field” with regard to indecency/obscenity. In fact, the fact that, as you noted, the FCC doesn’t have criminal prosecutorial powers pretty much shows that it doesn’t.
As to your original question, rjung, it’s a non-starter hypothetical. Remember, community standards is only part of the obscenity test. The full test is:
“(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest …; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). Thus, even if East Podunk found “Belgium” to be an obscene word (more accurately, that it “appeals to the prurient interest”), it would not be obscene under parts (b) and (c) of the test.
But perhaps I am being too literal. 
Your real question is whether a radio broadcast in one community, heard in another community where the content of the broadcast would be considered obscene, is prosecutable.
The answer is, it depends. It depends on whether the broadcasters intended, or should have known, that the offending broadcast could be heard in East Podunk. If it were a situation that East Podunk is 200 miles away and the radio station has an normal range of 150 miles, but occasionally spills over due to atmospheric conditions, IMO the broadcasters could not be prosecuted. OTOH, if East Podunk were in the station’s broadcasting area, or if it were close to the edge, and the broadcaster knew that the station could normally be picked up on East Podunk, then it might be prosecutable.
Sua