Federal Obscenity Rule Nixed In Internet Porn Case 832
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.'"
Re:Yay for free speech... (Score:3, Informative)
Whoa! I'll have to call bullshit on that.
The laws you listed are person on person crime. Laws that ban what you read/watch/think/listen/smoke/drink/sex/etc with, are morality laws. Regulation are for protective purposes only, mercury in fish, smoking, drinking, etc.
Of course, you can over regulate too, my state does this on Alchol, the Washington state runs the liqour stores, and places a higher sin tax on a limited selection. We keep trying to get through our state congress to privatize stores, so people can have more choices, and more locations. And of course make more taxes. But the common excuse to keep the state monopoly, "For the children, kids will have easier access", which is a utter lie.
Lucky Costco and a few others are sueing, as they have to buy from higher expensive state ran middlemen. Get the state out of business.
I guess thats conservative on business, and liberal on morals. Guess you can be both.
Re:This Will Be Appealled (Score:1, Informative)
The cost you are trying to quantify is borne by the degree of self-hatred forced upon people, creating an environment where sexually explicit material can only be created under a cloak of shame, and as a result often by people with undesirable character.
Interestingly enough, in modern times, this self-hatred and shame is created almost exclusively by evangelical christian republican lawyers.
If you want to reduce the costs to society caused by sexual obscenity, attack the problem at it's source - the insane puritannical nonsense spouted by the religious nitwits and forced down the common man's throat with threats of eternal terrorism.
Work hard to rid the earth of the twisted plague that is religion, that's how to reduce these costs to society.
Re:This Will Be Appealled (Score:4, Informative)
* A 1987 study found that women who were battered, or subject to sexual aggression or humiliation, had partners who viewed significantly more pornography than those of a control group drawn from a mature university population. (3)
Repeat after me 100 times: "Correlation is not equal to causation." Please demonstrate that viewing pornography was the cause of increased sexual aggression. It's just as easy to argue, and is seemingly more likely, that people who are already "sexually aggressive" are more likely to watch porn than those who aren't. Or there may be other factors involved. The existence of a correlation does not allow conclusions to be drawn.
* A 1995 meta-analysis found that violent pornography might reinforce aggressive behavior and negative attitudes toward women. (4)
That's VIOLENT pornography. Other existing psychological studies have also demonstrated that viewing images/movies of violence (without porn involved) increase aggressive behaviour. So really your problem here may have nothing to do with the "pornography" component and everything to do with the "violence" component. Could you please separate the two (hint about "science": you should try only test one thing at a time, unless you have an ideology you want to falsely reinforce by incorrectly linking A to undesirable B), and demonstrate that non-violent pornography causes an increase in aggressive behaviour? It could VERY WELL be that non-violent pornography has no effect at all on aggression rates, and that the real culprit here that causes "harm to society" is images of violence.
* A US study of teenagers exposed to "Hard core" pornography, "Two-thirds of the males and 40% of the females reported wanting to try out some of the behaviors they had witnessed. And, 31% of males and 18% of the females admitted doing some of the things sexually they had seen in the pornography within a few days after exposure." (5)
So? I fail to see the harm demonstrated. It's also true that watching advertisements depicting people eating ice-cream increases the amount of ice-cream eating behaviour, 'your next assignment is to prove that ice-cream eating is harmful'.
* A 1987 "panel of clinicians and researchers concluded that pornography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and for society, and that these outcomes impair the mental, emotional, and physical health of children and adults." (6)
This sounds a little vague, there is not much information here. I know many well-adjusted people who have viewed a lot of pornography, if pornography is harmful why are the vast majority of people immune to these harmful effects?
* A 1993 study found, "Exposure to sexually stimulating materials may elicit aggressive behavior in youth who are predisposed to aggression. Sexually violent and degrading material elicits greater rates of aggression and may negatively affect male attitudes toward women." (7)
Again, images of violence are already known to increase aggression: please separate the "effects of images of violence" from "effects of images of naked women". Also, not all pornography depicts women being degraded ... perhaps the cause of the problem here is not porn, but depictions of women being degraded? Is it possible that showing non-pornographic films of women being degraded also encourages more negative attitudes towards women? OF COURSE IT IS. You still haven't demonstrated that pornography is the cause.
* A 1984 evaluation of the increase in rape rates in various countries bears close correlation to liberalizing of restrictions on pornography. (8)
Correlation .. YAWN .. that means nothing. Demonstrate causality, please.
* Three separate studies demonstrate that exposure to violent pornography may increase males' laboratory aggression toward women. (9,10,11)
Again, this could have everything to do with images of violence and nothing to do with nakedness.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
Onepoint
Re:about time (Score:2, Informative)
In the past, the primary motivating factor for most immigrants to the US was economic; if this has held true, then the best way to "stem the tide" of immigration--both legal and otherwise--is to economically invest in these other countries. Start companies, build factories, give low-interest loans... any sort of investment along those lines would help both them and you.
The problem, of course, is that in order to save money (on healthcare), you have to spend it (on investment), first. The good news is that, given the relative economies of the world, this shouldn't be too expensive for most Americans (for we are all in this together, citizen, resident alien, and illegal immigrant alike).
~UP
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:3, Informative)
I still don't think you guys have figured it out. It isn't guilt, it is an exchange of control, a surrender... an expression of complete trust in the other.
Well, IMO at least...
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:3, Informative)
It was only by several cruel twists of fate, the electoral college, and an aggressive Republican strategy, with the help of the Presiden'ts brother, to block a recount in Florida that they siezed the White House. Subsequent studies indicate Florida was a dead heat, 4-5 recount methodologies went to Gore, 4-5 went to Bush. In a state with a dead heat, and an electoral deadlock, I'd say the tie breaker should go to the winner of the popular vote.
You didn't have "huge numbers" then, don't think you have them now.
Fast forward to 2004, well Bush did win by 3 million votes but he won by what, 60-100 thousand votes in Ohio, with numeerous irregularities, or he would have lost. The Democrats were trounced in the House and Senate granted.
But there were two things that happened that had nothing to do with the Democrats embracing or not embracing the people on the center/right.
One was 9/11. The Republicans played this issue to the hilt, they mercilessly exploited a tragedy at every turn to paint themselves as America's only competent defenders and the Democrats as weak and defenseless. It has nothing to do with people embracing the Republicans. They scared the pants off of everyone gullible enough to fall for it. Lots of people did. Remember the rhetoric at the Republican convention.
The other was gay marriage. Again it was an issue ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans to paint a picture that if the Democrats had their way gays would be wedding across the nation. What was the reality, Democrats mostly favored civil uniions to give gay couples basic legal protections and that states should decide the issue otherwise so liberal states could decide one way and conservative another. Bush demanded a constitutional amendment banning it across the nation and made it it in to a life or death wedge issue. Whats happened since, Bush has largely dropped the issue, the Republicans and Democrats are in fact pretty much at the same place, favoring civil unions and letting states decide. You see the election is over and Bush doesn't need this wedge issue any more to drive voters in to his column. It worked great last year when he need it though. By getting it on the ballot in 11-12 states they also drove large numbers of socially conservative voters out to vote and they probably voted Republican after they voted no on Gay Marriage. It was a brilliant strategy.
I really doubt the elections had anything to do with the realities of the electoral landscape, of the center and right turning on the lefties. It was an exercise in ruthless, brilliant campaigners crushing an inept Democratic party.
Oh and the other factor is, the Democratic party is just fielding really bad candidates with really bad strategy backing them up. Dean was the only candidate with a strategy and he both stuck his foot in his mouth a couple times and was destroyed by the media. Wont really get me to defend the Democrats, they are pathetic and getting more so everyday.
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:1, Informative)
No, in other words, laws are often selectively enforced, generally to suit the desires of the powerful. Witness the random enforcement of traffic laws (particularly speeding) in most urban areas. Witness the war against drug that has sent millions of non-violent marijuana smokers to prison while the children of priviledge engage in underage binge drinking and cocaine use. Witness selective use of zoning laws to evict low income residents so that rich landlords can buldoze a development and turn it into a new Starbucks with yuppie living spaces aboe it. Witness the laws banning a wide variety of sexual activities that exist throughout the country that are largely ignored but are selectively used to charge a few disliked people when nothing else will stick.
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:3, Informative)
No. A plurality did.
You didn't have "huge numbers" then, don't think you have them now.
Then, clearly not. This time is debatable.
Remember the rhetoric at the Republican convention.
No. I didn't watch either convention. My decision was made in 2000. When Bush won the 2000 election, I knew I'd be voting for him again in 2004.
The other was gay marriage. Again it was an issue ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans to paint a picture that if the Democrats had their way gays would be wedding across the nation.
It's not fair to blame the Republicans for spiking the ball when the Democrats gave them such a perfect set for it.
Democrats were beating the drum of "gay rights" and the Republicans took advantage of society's revulsion at that.
By getting it on the ballot in 11-12 states they also drove large numbers of socially conservative voters out to vote and they probably voted Republican after they voted no on Gay Marriage. It was a brilliant strategy.
Once again, the social liberals set this up. By pushing the issue in state supreme courts, they forced the opposition to step up the fight. The US Supreme Court's sodomy decision and the Massachusetts supreme court's decision on gay marriage caused a backlash. You can't blame Republicans for taking advantage.
I really doubt the elections had anything to do with the realities of the electoral landscape, of the center and right turning on the lefties. It was an exercise in ruthless, brilliant campaigners crushing an inept Democratic party.
The Democrat base is now so far to the left that they didn't have the ability to run to the center they way they did in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut in 1992. He signed the "welfare reform" law in 1996. He courted centrist voters. In this election the democrats couldn't do that. After vilifying Bush's tax cut for 3 years, they couldn't then claim to want tax cuts.
Wont really get me to defend the Democrats, they are pathetic and getting more so everyday.
I'll defend and attack them at the same time. So many of the Democrat's ideals are wonderful. I'd love to see some of their social policies become law, problem is that the rest of their platform is so repugnant to me that I can never support them in a presidential election.
LK
Congrats (Score:2, Informative)