Federal Obscenity Rule Nixed In Internet Porn Case

CaptainEbo writes "A court has declared the federal anti-obscenity law unconstitutional in a criminal case against an Internet porn distributor: 'We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials.' The court's decision rested in part on Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Under Lawrence, said the court, 'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"

My Reaction.

[neoshroom]

Fuck yeah!

Re:about time

[Anonymous Coward]

...upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest...

it's about fucking time!

Exactly!

Pr0n always leading the way...

[TheLoneDanger]

Pr0n once again leading the way... from techonology to sane legal precedents, pr0n is probably the biggest motivator for change in human history.

Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?

Re:Pr0n always leading the way...

[HeghmoH]

Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?

Get you laid.

Re:I'm with you here.

[ilsa]

I also find it pretty funny that the bible-thumping types that are always so vocal about porn had a conference in some hotel a while back, and that hotel reported a 600% increase of their in-room porn rentals over that weekend... pot, meet kettle.

That's just research. They need to be able to make educated opinions about porn, after all. ;-)

Re:I'm with you here.

[meringuoid]

It is if it causes you to be incapable of preventing yourself from taking an action that harms others.

One might argue that this is also the case with obscene literature. Pornography turns ordinary pious citizens into perverted rapists, after all, just like marijuana turns well-behaved youngsters into Satan-worshipping anti-war deviants.

Re:about time

[defile]

OK ... and when you (or someone else) takes a non-FDA drug, does that mean you waive all rights to suck up my tax dollars when you show up at the emergency room?

That's an easy yes. Is this a trick question?

Me like

[trezor]

I like how you put Satan-worshippping and anti-war in the same stereotype. But I guess your target audience won't even notice the irony.

Re:Wrong, actually

[slothman32]

You mean if 51% of people decide that the other 49% should be enslaved then that isn't enough? Rats.

Also I think it only requires a 51% in 75% of states. I could be wrong though.

Re:Finally

[This is outrageous!]

The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.

Good. Let's now dismantle NASA, public roads, the National Parks, etc., as all this was terror inflicted upon us by overreaching governments.

Re:I'm with you here.

[monkease]

Well, I am minister of the Born Again Church of the Foundation Crusade, and truly I tell you: I'm a total sexually-repressed hypocrite.

;p

Mans law?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm not tied by "mans law". "Right-winged Christians". Thats a cute saying by the enemy (small e). Wake up, take off the blinds, for you are blinded.

It's quite sad accually. I'm sure in time you "world" will find a way to make child porn and beastiality "ok".

Have fun.

Re:Wrong, actually

[ca1v1n]

Actually, it must be ratified by .75 of the states, however those states decide to do it. In most states, the legislature does this. (where e is a number greater than zero) Each legislator was elected by a margin of .5 + e, and the measure had to pass by .5 + e, and .75 of the states had to ratify. So (.75)(.5 + e)(.5 + e) = .1875 + e. So, basically, 19% of the population has to approve it, but given the power of special interest groups and single-issue voting blocs in elections (apparently a majority of Republicans are pro-choice) the reality is that it requires far less than 19%.

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[Bluetick]

Conservatives were for small government when they could use the term states' rights as a euphemism for segregation in southern states. However, whether they were truly ever for states' rights and small federal government is debateable, their support for it evaporated as fast as you can say legalized medical marijuana, doctor assisted suicide, gay marriage or counting votes.