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.'"
Paul Graham Essay (Score:5, Interesting)
More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's more information from our local papers:
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [post-gazette.com]
Pittsburgh Tribune Review [pittsburghlive.com]
WTAE-TV [thepittsburghchannel.com]
Re:Thank You! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say this case could rather be a more general setback for the "moral" religious right that's pushing so hard for changes right now. Personally, that makes me happy since I don't like it when other people try to FORCE me to be "moral" by their standards (I find it aggravating enough when people try to TELL me to be moral, but hey, it's their free speech).
Re:about time (Score:1, Interesting)
Exactly. I can't wait until the drinking age is lowered to 18, and the handgun ownership age is lowered to the same. And Concealed carry laws get revoked. And it will be great when my tax money stops going into Social Security and welfare and medicare. And it will be GREAT when schools no longer teach my children that sex before marrige is OK, or that homosexuality is even remotely acceptable.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:1, Interesting)
It is their business if the majority of the people in this country feel that's the way the laws should read, and the appointed judges don't disagree. It sounds like the majority is slowly moving away from this sort of morality-based thinking, but it is the government's business to do what the people tell it to do, even if that conflicts with your personal beliefs. Remember this country was founded by heavily religous people and most of the population still is, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that in general our laws are very conservative..
The difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Take student prayer for example. A law that says you can't pray is wrong. A law that says you must pray is also wrong. A law that says you can pray if you want to but no government employee in authority over you is allowed to influence that decision one way or another is ok, but redundant.
By wrong I mean unconstitutional and anti-freedom. By redundant I mean that it is already in the constitution, so why write another law?
Re:about time (Score:3, Interesting)
However, labelling cars is not helpful and it is a serious public health risk to have unqualified drivers on the road.
Re:about time (Score:4, Interesting)
How about the drinking age. A consenting adult who can watch porn and kill, but can't drink.
Gun laws in general. A concenting adult can look at porn but can't own a gun to protect his family? Sounds like a moral decision to me.
No, I'm perfectly serious. Every particular set of laws which forbids something that doesn't violate the rights of another person is a moral decision imposing a set of beleifs upon society. Porn, obcenity, drinking and gun ownership are all variations on the same thing.
Re:Yay for free speech... (Score:3, Interesting)
That may be true, if you believe that people aren't equal. If you read your John Stuart Mill, he claims that it's quite easy to come up with a fair, reasonable legal system, given that people should be treated equally (which is a value statement, I'll grant you that, but it's at a mostly universal value). My rights stop where yours begin. I can do whatever the hell I want as long as I don't infinge on your life or liberty.
Re:Yay for free speech... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:3, Interesting)
If we were talking about an ordinary murder, I'd agree. If a killing is, by chance, caught on CCTV, and the tape ends up getting circulated among those who enjoy such material, then viewing it, while weird and unpleasant, shouldn't be a crime in itself. If it was, we'd have to shut down rotten.com...
But if we're talking about illegal porn, the reason the murder or the child abuse or whatever was committed in the first place is to sell videos. Hence the customer who buys these things is, in effect, sponsoring the killing or the rape. If I hire a hitman to rub out an enemy, I'm a criminal. If I pay for a snuff movie... I think I share the guilt there too.
This is huge, really important (Score:3, Interesting)
That basically at one stroke rules that the entire "social conserative" agenda may never be legislated, and reverses everything they already have on the books. I can practically hear their screams from here, and I'm in England.
If higher courts pick this up, it'll be the biggest thing since Roe v Wade. Heck, bigger.
Re:Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think what has happened is the Republicans who believed in those two things have either become Libertarians, or only still reluctantly vote for people like Bush. And to fill that void, the party has sucked in Democrats and Moderates who care more about religion than common sense civil government. So basically they've alienated the people who really believe in personal liberty. I sincerely hope McCain leads the charge to taking back the Republican party.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Next time you're at the supermarket, look at the tabloids. What you see in there is a combination of titillation and outraged posturing. How better to disguise your own sexual desires, even from yourself, then to assume a posture of moral outrage? Of course, the tabloids have photos of semi-naked celebrities only because paparazzi are paid outrageous sums to intrude into private spaces to take pictures of people who think they are in a place where no one can see them. It's like having someone barge into your bathroom while you take a shower and being outraged that you aren't wearing any clothes. And yet, these tabloids sell like hotcakes by doing this and appealing to purient outrage. So who are the perverts here?
There's another interesting thing going on here. Yesterday my wife and I were trying to figure out why some people get turned on by S&M. We just couldn't see the attraction. Then it occurred to me that it has to do with guilt: crime and punishment. If you're naughty you must be punished, but the punishment itself gives you permission to be naughty. The other side of the equation is the dom, who punishes the submissive; the attraction here is power and control. The dom is in fact attempting to control their own desires; they are also motivated by guilt, which they escape by shifting it on to the submissive. The submissive is the naughty one. (In fact I've heard it said that the submissive is actually the one in control in S&M--at least when it's done right, and a lot of doms just play the role for the benefit of the submissive.)
And then it struck me: this whole 'family values' thing is kink! The outraged moralists are frustrated doms, obsessed with sex, desparate to partake in it. The reason they are so offended by the sexual practices of others is that they just can't stop thinking about it. So they displace the guilt. It's your fault that they're thinking about it--if you would just stop doing it, they could stop thinking of it. In the Muslim world, this is the motivation behind the hijab, the bhurka, and female cirumcision.
What we are witnessing is a sexual disfunction elevated to the level of a social and political movement. But it's still just kink.
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:5, Interesting)
I assure you the Bush administration and the new Republican party has noticed this little problem with these politicly conservative judges blocking government intrusion and invasion of our lives and they are going to fix it in the next four years.
You can be sure judges nominated by the Bush administration are going to be right wing, social conservatives, not political conservatives, and probably fundementalist Christian to boot, as their litmus test. The other litmust test will be their willingness to allow the state to use law to impose its view of morality and security by force, at the expense of the Constitution and our civil liberties.
Of course our great nation of laws was designed for the possibility that an extremist party might gain power and attempt to stack the courts with extremist judges. Thats why their is a filibuster in the Senate so a supermajority is required to approve controversial laws or judges. It prevents a majority party in power from going off the deep end, in law or judicial appointments, and is a critical element of checks and balances.
Unfortunately the Republican's are already talking about changing the Senate rules this year to do away with the filibuster on judicial nominees and require only a simple majority. If that happens they can nominate truly extreme judges, including to the Supreme Court, and as long as they can hold a party line vote they will be be approved. An essential check and balance, the filibuster, will be gone and another will be in imminent danger.
If the Republican's succeed in this rule change it is time to start marching in the streets because it means these extremists will have stolen your government from you. After four years of packing the courts, especially the Supreme court, they will have erased one more of the crucial checks and balances. The courts are an essential check on an extremist legislature and President who seek to pass laws in contravention of the Constitution and our precious civil liberties, civil liberties we have taken for granted and are about to lose.
If the New Republican Party succeeds in eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominations its just a matter of time before they eliminate it in the Senate all together. At that point the Democrats may as well not even bother showing up because they will be impotent and powerless. We will be effectively living in a one party state, and one party states are synonymous with dictatorship. The Republican's will be able to pass any law they can hold a party line vote on, and if they've packed the courts it wont be overturned in the courts.
There is irony when the right wing talks so much about all the blood that's been shed by soldiers over the last two centuries, blood shed protecting our freedom and civil liberties. The irony is they appear to be the ones seeking to dismantle those same freedoms through subterfuge and political trickery. The burning question, are their any great patriots still alive today willing to stand up and defend the world's first great experiment in Democracy in the hour of its greatest peril. These patriots will have a far harder job than their forefathers did when they joined an Army and carried a gun in to a war. They will have a job as hard as the founding fathers did when they stood up in rebellion against a tyrannical King. They will have to stand against their own government, their own neighbors and risk being branded as a traitor. They will face prison where the rule of law can apparently no longer can be counted upon, and torture has become acceptable practice. Are their any people left in this once great nation with the fortitude, and the greatness, to save it from itself?
Re:Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:5, Interesting)
DirecTV, Hughes, etc are owened by MUCH larger corporations, but you will NEVER see them break out their earnings by adult TV subscriptions, because General Motors or Rupert Murdoch (or EchoStar or whomever) don't want you to know that they are one of the US's largest porn distributors.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:4, Interesting)
> you want; however, there is a limit when that
> interferes with other's rights (drunk driving,
> for example).
That's where the notion of personal responsibility comes into play. I don't think one should be banned from getting drunk any more than I think the state should have the power to stop someone from smoking a joint or snorting cocaine. Providing an individual doesn't jump in a car, then so be it. We don't ban alcohol because some people are idiot enough to drive while under the influence, so why shouldn't the same notion be extended to heroin or marijuana.
> I'm also not to keen on having to pay through
> health insurance costs and tax dollars to keep
> pumping the stomach of every drug addict on the
> streets.
This is a dangerous slippy slope. Shall we forbid downhill skiing because of the risks of knee injuries? How about Big Macs? Should we ban those as well?
In a free society, we shouldn't be trying to micromanage anybody's life. I'd rather have my tax dollars go to pay to try to help out some poor bastard who is addicted to crack, rather than having the "Moral Majority" or whatever group claims to be speaking God or whoever telling me I can't smoke a joint or watch a porn flick.
Re:about time (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are going to cut hairs for Libertarians, you should do the same for anarchists. Anarchy often gets described as the abscense of government. However, anarchism is more accurately described as a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.
Anarchists can see the value of laws and regulations - but they also see the associated negative aspects such as the quasi-military forces (and the inevitable abuse of the powers of this force) required to support them. Anarchism is the belief that there are better strategies - which seems like there is some overlap with Libertarians in this regard because there are many things that authority will impose its will on - because it can and wants to subjugate, not because it is right or better for society or the individuals that live in that society.
The secret prison at Guantanamo is an interesting example. What happens when the force used to enforce the law, when there is no law? Does this not reveal something to us about the law itself?
Re:about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Well see thats the problem. The answer is of course not, but in aggregate the answer has to be yes. The reason is: incentive. Here in California we have a *massive* illegal immigrant problem. Its estimated that each californian pays 1000$ in taxes per year to support services that go to illegals.
If we stopped providing services to them, that would be cruel and heartless right? But how else to stop them from coming? Right now were saying "don't come here, but if you do, we wont ask questions".
Re:about time (Score:2, Interesting)
The human brain doesn't stop it's main development till the age of 20 or 21 in general. The idea is to let people's brain develop normlaly then let them drink. A healthy citizen is a good, voting citizen.
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Rights are absolute, regardless of location. I hate this relativist claptrap that says ``it's a different culture, so it's alright if they infringe on people's fundamental rights''. It's not alright. It's Immoral, dictatorial, and repugnant.
If a community tries to deny its constituents protection of their rights because they don't like said rights, then the ability to govern should be taken away from them, by force if need be.
Re:Paul Graham Essay (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonderful essay. Thanks for the link!
Wonderful essay?
If you don't argue with idiots, you will find yourself ruled by policies set by idiots. I won't go into all the idiotic legislation we have because we failed to argue hard enough with the idiots in charge.One-dimensional thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet there are many types of issue, and people's thinking about economics doesn't necessarily correlate with that on social issues, or morality, or the military, or culture, &c. Being aware of the difference can help you to think more clearly about them.
For example, Political Compass [f2s.com] uses a two-dimensional grid for displaying political positions, with an economic axis (traditional left/right), and a social one (libertarian/authoritarian). On that scale, for example, the opposite of communism (at the extreme left) is neo-liberalism (at the extreme right), and the opposite of anarchism (at the extreme libertarian end) is fascism (at the extreme authoritarian end).
It's still simplistic in many ways, but presents a vastly more useful way of thinking about politics. Recommended.
Re:Mans law? (Score:2, Interesting)
In short, why are Christians so scared?
Simple. In 2000/2001, they thought Jesus would return but didn't. This makes them question if he is returning at all. Over time, their fear will turn to hate. Considering we have Evangicals running for office more now, it's only takes time before they launch nuclear weapons so they can punish their "enemies" for disagreeing with them. All this from an ancient document.
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:2, Interesting)
What is terrifying to me is that a genuine majority of the people in America seem to be happy/not care about the looming social conservative legislation and loss of civil rights.
Me thinks that perhaps America has grown too fat and lazy on the backs of the rest of the world, and is heading for an implosion. I only wonder where in the world will be safe while the storm passes.
Best news I've heard all day. :) (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this will be slightly off-topic, but...
Being a gay man that would really like to marry his partner, this is phenomenal. I'm tired of being told that I'm immoral, I can't adopt children, get married, etc because it's not in the State's interest (which is to encourage procreation, apparently).
Getting off my soapbox now...
Re: Wrong, actually (Score:3, Interesting)