So when are they going after Fred Phelps?
(snerk)
Here’s a Smoking Gun item from 2003 that’s similar to the one being discussed in this thread: The Smoking Gun: Public Documents, Mug Shots
The Justice Department under Bush has definitely cracked down more on obscenity than the Clinton Justice Department did. I imagine that has a lot to do with John Ashcroft’s tenure.
:smack: Patently. I’m not sure what patiently offensive would be. A flasher who gives you a minute to get ready?
Ah, so this standard is a dreaded but now not so dreaded in this case, “penumbra,” is it?
There is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the definition of obscenity in which this statement is not true. Maybe that’s more a comment on the Court’s shitty attempts of defining obscenity (which itself isn’t grounded in the text of the Amendment anywhere that I can see, but IIRC my ConLaw II class, just some offhand dictum in an unrelated case), but regardless, suggesting that the definition of obscenity is anything but a wholly ad hoc policy decision is disingenuous. So the answer to your question is that I suggest, and hope, taht when the Democrats are back in office, they will decide that this is not a violation of the law. SUch a decision is 1) wholly within the Executive’s purview, and 2) correct.
–Cliffy
I highly doubt that any Democrat administration will publicly state a definition of obscenity differing from that laid down by the Supreme Court, but I do think that what happened under Clinton will likely happen again. Obscenity prosecutions will decline and people peddling things like scat videos will be free to do so not because they are legally protected but because they will not be prosecuted.
Trying to start a debate over obscenity would be a losing battle since it would inflame the majority of Americans who are appalled at things like scat, fisting, bukkake, and the variety of things listed in the above affidavit. A better tactic is to have a Justice Department that decides to focus on other things. Let the niche market deal in these extreme videos and let the “moral majority” be secure in the knowledge that “obscenity” is against the law. Everyone wins.
Fine. Ban the Bible then.
If they decided that the resources were needed to (e.g.) track down and catch Osama, well, yes, and properly so.
No, I personally am not the arbiter.
But if you’re in this issue for honest debate, then please admit that under the law as it now stands, the determination that “Toilet Man 6” is obscene is pretty easy to make, and the determination that “The Clinton Chronicles” is NOT legally obscene is even easier to make.
Nope, sorry. I don’t go for the banning of just about anything. I was just trying to give the definition of obscene, not support it. As far as I’m concerned there should be as many Toilet Men as the market will allow.
I don’t agree.
Well, let me be more specific. I don’t agree that any reasonable person can read the current definition of obscene, as laid out in Miller v California, and decide that “Toilet Man 6” does not meet that definition. (I assume for this discussion that the contents of TM6 are as laid out in the affadavit linked to at the beginning of the thread). If we’re arguing honestly here, the average person would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Clearly the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct AND excretory functions. And clearly the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
So what I said is correct.
Now, you hint at another point – the Miller test itself does not derive from the text of the First Amendment. It’s in essence made up out of whole cloth.
You’re right. And all I can say is you have no room to object to this if you applaud the departure from the text in other circumstances more to your liking.
I don’t favor the Miller test myself. But I don’t favor the departure from the text under most all circumstances. Nonetheless, it is, right now, the law of the land, and no reasonable, good-faith debattor can argue that its terms, if read and applied fairly, mandate the conclusion that TM6 is legally obscene.
sigh
If the average person, applying contemporary community standards, considered the Bible, he would NOT find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Nor would he find that the the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
You’ll note that the Miller decision specifies “the average person.” Not you.
This is your vision for a governing party? “We know what the majority wants, but they’re too stupid to know what’s best. So we’ll placate them and run things how they should really be run.”
One, I’m a Republican/Libertarian, so I’d prefer the Democrats not to run things.
Two, in general, the Clinton non-enforcement of obscenity laws was much better in my view than the current stepped-up prosecution of obscenity. It makes no sense to waste limited law enforcement resources on poop videos.
One, I’m a Republican/Libertarian, so I’d prefer the Democrats not to run things.
Two, in general, the Clinton non-enforcement of obscenity laws was much better in my view than the current stepped-up prosecution of obscenity. It makes no sense to waste limited law enforcement resources on poop videos.
Three, I don’t think the majority should get to stop the minority from doing things it considers merely distateful. Obscenity hurts no one, and if the Justice Dept. wants to ignore the will of the majority in this case and focus on crimes that actually hurt people, I think that everyone will benefit.
Lets cut to the chase. Am I not allowed to download porn anymore?
Because this Government is ran by the Christian Right Wing and Attorney General Gonzales is disguising these attacks on the porn industry as protecting minors. Specifically the new updates to the 2257 Record Keeping Law. Now, secondary producers are supposed to have the age and other personal information of the porn starts on file. :rolleyes:
Secondary producer is such a broad term that if I posted a picture on this website of two adults engaging in a sexual act, the own of this site could get in trouble for not having the actors engaged in the sex act’s records on file.
I’m saying they’ll be find more important uses for the resources of our law enforcement agencies, people who are more dangerous to Americans. Like, you know … terrorists, for example.
I’ll see you Tipper and raise you censorin’ Joe Lieberman … oh, that’s right, he’s not exactly a Dem anymore … Point is, Tipper and Lieberman are outliers wrt censorship among Dems. Among Pubbies they’d be right in there with the pack … trailing them, in fact …