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)
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.about time (Score:4, Insightful)
it's about fucking time! I'm getting so sick of these self-righteous jackasses that seem to think I have to live my life according to *their* beliefs.
Re:about time (Score:5, Funny)
it's about fucking time!
Exactly!
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who says the culture wants to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
That paragraph just screamed "interracial marriage" at me, and theme carries pretty well through your entire post. Did you know that as recently as 1967 (quite possibly during your lifetime) some one-third of all states had laws against interracial marriage? In several cases going so far as making it a criminal offense with up to 10 years in prison?
And of course you can easily complain about all sorts of ways society has gone to hell since the laws against interracial marriage were struck down.
And in case you missed the obvious, there is absolutely no constitutional difference between prohibiting interracial marriage and prohibiting gay marriage. Legally they are both attempts to discriminate which applicants are permitted to marry. Of course there are perfectly legal grounds for discriminating some acceptable applicants from other unacceptable applicants, such as that they have to be 2 humans capable of consent. However any attempt for the law to discriminate between applicants on the basis of race, gender, or religion is unconstitutional. Either the individual clause restricting applicants on that basis is null and void and all otherwise qualified applicants must be accepted, or if such single-clause-stickdown is not possible then the entire law granting any marriages at all would be invaild. No one would be able to legally marry in that state.
Oh, and I really love how you try to blame AIDS on "the newly open culture of male gay sex". First of all there would be no difference whether the culture was "open" or hidden in the closet. Secondly even if there were no gays at all it wouldn't have made much difference. Sure AIDS got a faster start in the gay community, but that also resulted in earlier detection and response. The vast majority of the spread of AIDS is from non-gay populations. We'd have almost the exact same "epidemic".
If you really want a health-based crusade you really should be declaring that hand-shaking is immoral. That results in more spread of more diseases than anything else.
But civilizations also have an interest in repressing at least the most extremes of the forbidden, for society's own good. And THAT is why we still have obscenity laws.
No, there is no legitimate use of government force for the sole purpose that some people dislike something. The primary legitimate purpose for law and the use of government force is in preventing one person from violating another person's rights, and responding to such violations when they occur. Sure there are other valid purposes for law, running a military and estabishing an economy and infrastructure, yada yada yada. But what we are talking about here is creating criminal law without any actual underlying crime against anyone's rights. You do not have a rigght not to be offended. If you don't want to be promiscuous, fine, don't be promiscuous. You don't want to buy porn, fine, don't buy porn. You don't want gay marriage "imposed on you", fine, don't enter a gay marriage.
There is certainly a legitimate government purpose in a law against violating someone's right not to be shot in the head. That is not a morality-law. That is a violatrion of someone's rights and it is a crime. As the court ruled, public morality is not a legitimate state interest to criminalize things that merely offend public's sense of morality.
You can't force people into heaven by holding a gun to their head. People are perfectly free to choose to go to hell. If someone is being "immoral", but he is not voilating any of your rights, then you have no buiness pulling out a gun and forcibly imprisoning him for it.
obscenity laws. Now, if you disagree with them, then work to change that. BUT...simply bitching about the laws won't accomplish anything.
In case you hadn't noticed this entire story is about changing the law by ha
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:3, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
Onepoint
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:5, Funny)
That's just research. They need to be able to make educated opinions about porn, after all.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:4, Insightful)
"
you forgot one.....
ingest. It's none of their business what I put into my body either.
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Me like (Score:4, Funny)
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: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: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: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...
There are hypocrites, and there are hypocrites. (Score:4, Insightful)
The second kind of hypocrite does not actually believe his own propaganda, but merely uses it to manipulate others to his advantage. An example would be the Communist Party bosses in the old Sovient Union who would preach austerity and economic independence from the West by day, but buy Western luxuries in secret Party shops by night.
The Christian Church has always been full of the first type of hypocrite - and openly so. "I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance," said Jesus, and a modern bumper sticker says, "Please be patient, God is not finished with me yet."
Just as you should pay attention to the doctors advice about the dangers of smoking - even though the doctor fails miserably at taking his own advice, so you should take seriously warnings about the dangers of pornography - even if the preacher fails to take his own advice.
Perhaps you suspect that TV preachers are the second kind of hypocrite - not actually believing what they preach, but cynically manipulating their audience to keep sending in those donations. For the majority of TV preachers, I would agree with you. Even then, however, to the extent that they accurately portray the message they claim to represent, you should take the message seriously. As Paul said, "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely ... What then? not
withstanding, ..., whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I
therein do rejoice."
Unfortunately, while scientific measurements may be getting more accurate, the accuracy of mass media preachers resembles the accuracy of marketroids at a tech company. They tend to modify their message to tickle the ears of the target audience. To see what a given Church teaches, take a Church document with some history behind it, ignoring recent "innovations", and then compare it with the sources (the Bible and history).
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 we
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm with you here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, actually (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for all that, naturally, is to protect the minority from the majority. If 51% of the poup
Re:Wrong, actually (Score:3, Funny)
Also I think it only requires a 51% in 75% of states. I could be wrong though.
Re:Wrong, actually (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Wrong, actually (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:about time (Score:3, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
Re:about time (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, not interested? Guess what, living is dangerous. That's why we have emergency rooms. Not that I particularly think they should be taxpayer funded, but excluding only your pet peeve is stupid.
Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things, first and foremost. In most "non-FDA" drug, emergency room related incidents; it is a matter of life and death. Most "hard drug" consumers are breaking laws they don't want to face until they have too. Are you going to say that your tax dollars are more important than someone's life. Even if they may be a "drug taking fiend". Sometimes good people make mistakes too.
Second point, I am willing to wager that emergency rooms see ten times more drunk driver casulties than drug OD's.
So what about people that drink and drive? Are they sucking up your tax dollars too? That's an FDA approved drug.
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? Rig
Re:about time (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty vicious really, because these same employers don't want legal immigrants, whom they would have to pay fairly. They want the immigrants and they want them illegal. And they don't especially care that you, the tax paye
Re:about time (Score:3, Insightful)
What if, the same people making money off them were using that money to bribe state and federal officals in charge of the whole mess?
Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Now hold on here. Of course most libertarians, just like anyone else in a civil society, see the value in laws and regulations. People always stereotype Libertarians as wanting to start some anarchist society, which couldn't be farther from the truth. The whole idea behind Libertarianism is that people have a fundamental right to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And when someone does infringe on the rights of others, they must take full responsiblity for their actions. Of course we need laws and regulations... how else would you decide when someone does something wrong?
There is such a huge disconnect between common sense and many laws and regulations in this country. How is it that we trust 18 year olds to operate guns and missiles and WMD's and yet we can't trust them to drink alcohol until they are 21?! Why is it against the law to circumvent copyright protection to play a DVD in Linux? Why do public protests have to be carefully planned out and approved by the local govt?
With any group you get fringe people who would ignore thousands of years of common sense. But the vast majority of libertarians are a lot more moderate in their views than most people outside the party think
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 th
Re:about time (Score:3, Insightful)
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:about time (Score:3, Insightful)
good reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that murder is illegal becuase it harms a citizen without that citizen's concent. Same
My Reaction. (Score:4, Funny)
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:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't too long ago that 'conservatives' were the people who were loathe to add more laws and regulations that interfere with people's ability to do what they wanted, and were arguing we needed a very strong, clear harm to be present in an activity before it was legislated against. These days, the neocons and social conservatives (and Christian Fascists, frankly) have stolen the 'conservative' label and have started to label anyone who doesn't agree with their social policies as a liberal (with the obvious implications that liberals are the ones taking down this country, corrupting our youth, and providing hostelling services to travelling al Queda terrorists, of course).
It's perfectly within reason that a conservative person would find an anti-obscenity law ludicrous and offensive, and it's good that this one did.
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:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:3)
It's funny because, assuming that you're correct, they were only able to do this because of the huge numbers of people who were ostracized and excluded by "progressives" and liberals. Anyone who is ever so slightly to the right of center plainly is not wanted by the Democrats. The Republicans are more than happy to accept these people.
LK
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 B
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
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement alone indicates you are not competent or qualified to make intelligent political commentary. For all you knew Bush would break every campaign promise he ever made about honesty, openness and integrity in his administration, create a police state with secret imprisonments, cancel habeus corpus, approve the use of torture, invade a country under false pretenses, driven the US into a half a trillion dollar debt, begun the dismantling of social security, politicize the civil service, appoint incompetents throughout his cabinet, and preside over the worst four years of the stock market since the Great Depression, and then STILL wouldn't be able to think of a single thing he did wrong in the previous four years. But, oh boy, you knew you'd vote for him in 2004 when he won in 2000.
Its knee jerk reality-challenged people like you that just make me shake my head in wonder.
Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a problem at a Federal level if they dismantle the Senate filibuster as is their plan. Or if they gain a few more Senate seats in 2 years. The Democrats are in such a state of collapse they may well have a fillibuster proof majority in two years. They are already completely powerless in the House, I dont know why they even show up.
They Republicans have already taken to disappearing in to Republican only conference committees with Dick Cheney where they rewrite legislatio
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.
Pr0n always leading the way... (Score:5, Funny)
Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?
Re:Pr0n always leading the way... (Score:5, Funny)
Get you laid.
Re:Pr0n always leading the way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Something positive? There are no positives in pornography.
Supreme Court ruling needed now (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time that it's been determined that "public morality" does not extend past public places. Then again, there has been much absurdity in both laws and judicial decisions for as long as there have been laws and judicial decisions.
Hopefully this is the start of a trend that will continue. The major "if" is who GWB will put on the Court after Rehnquist retires/dies. However, with what the Democrats have been doing regarding nominations to any post call into question whether anyone could possibly be confirmed onto the Court. We might just have a vacancy forever, because if the Democrats can do it, so can the Republicans if a Democrat wins in 2008.
Re:Supreme Court ruling needed now (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that I support Shrublet and his neocons, but filibustering appointments because of political grudges is ludicrous. There's either a valid reason to keep someone out of office or there's not. If there's a valid reason, it should be laid out on the table. If there's not, suck it up, your party lost, try harder next election.
Re:Supreme Court ruling needed now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supreme Court ruling needed now (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell Freezes Over! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
that was one of those things they used to have back when everybody worked down the mines in the UK, and walked to work, nine miles up hill, and back nine miles up hill, in the wind and hail, every day, wasn't it?
But seriously, thank god somebody remembers the constitution.
Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take the gay marriage issue. Should this REALLY be a federal issue? Of course not and thank heavens that Sen. McCain pointed out that such a federal law would interfere with "state's rights".
Federal anti-obscenity laws aren't any different. What doesn't play in Peoria could be considered as quite tame in NYC.
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:Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 consti
Debates Like This A Part of Freedom? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta love logic like that. Gotta love how our country is obsessed with "morals" in the bedroom (or computer room, wherever that may be) that affect no one other than the consenting adults involved. Go read some Kant and later responses and rejections to Kant to get a feel for what more substantial morals
good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to view so called illicet material has nothing to do with the gouvernment.
What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their homes is up to them, If they wish to publish it on the internet for free or for profit then it's up to them aswell.
If John Doe wishes to go online and look at two(or more ) consenting people "Getting jiggy" then why the hell does any gouvernment have any right to restrict a persons freedom in this manner.
This is a a wonderfull step towards ensuring your rights and i for the first time in a long while have read a story about the USA courts and not been down hearted.
alot of the religious or right wing people may find this stuff shocking , personaly im not a pr0n fan myself but and this is a big but(depends on the porn
Sure as hell dont try and stop other people from doing what they enjoy.
Lastly i must say again how good it is to see a positive news story about peoples rights being upheld
Courtship (Score:3, Insightful)
And how does freedom-loving talk radio respond? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Funny)
Good. Let's now dismantle NASA, public roads, the National Parks, etc., as all this was terror inflicted upon us by overreaching governments.
Oh yes, exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.
That would be attractive if it weren't so brain-dead stupid.
Hint: If your political philosophy can fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't reflect the real world. Libertarianism is nice and utopian and all, but it's also more of a religion than a successful political ideology.
This Will Be Appealled (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I fully expect this decision to be appealled. Remember, this decision is coming out of a district court, which is subject to review by Appeals and the Supremes. Specifically, I would argue that this case interprets Lawrence v. Texas [findlaw.com] too broadly, that Lawrence dealt with liberty concerns of regulating homosexual behavior vs. heterosexual behavior, and that this instant case incorrectly applies those liberty concerns to regulation of sexual obscenity regardless of "actor" orientation.
When it comes to sexual obscenity in general, there is more to consider than simply individual liberty. There is a undeniable cost to society from the dissemination of sexually obscene material, although I will be the first to admit the difficulty of quantifying that cost.
It is that cost that must be balanced against the demands of personal liberty.
I think it also important to bring up the still-binding 1973 case Miller v. California [findlaw.com]. That Supreme Court case held that sexually obscene material was NOT Speech, and as thus could be regulated by the several States.
The Miller Test for obscenity was that something is obscene if it "[A] appeals to the prurient [lustful] interest in sex; [B] portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, [C] taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value [the SLAPS test]." (Bracketed text is my own.)
It should be noted that Miller applied to regulation by the several States, whereas this instant case deals with federal regulation. How and why different rules apply to the federal vs. the state government is beyond my current level of skill to discuss adaquetely and in-depth.
Personally, do I believe pornography should be banned? No. But I do believe that some level of regulation is warranted, and that the benefits of that regulation must be balanced against the cost to personal liberty.
- Neil Wehneman
P.S. I have previously posted additional thoughts on how pornography regulation is and is not justified based on specific secular criteria in an older Slashdot story [slashdot.org].
Re:This Will Be Appealled (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is whether a standard can be made to determine --- specifically --- whether a particular image is or is not obscene.
I checked your previous post but did not find any specifics about which specific images you think the state has a compelling interest to regulate.
Re:This Will Be Appealled (Score:3, Insightful)
As you pointed out in your other post, you need to show harm done by pornography. But not just to self. It's not a crime to be depressed or self-hating, for example. We've even upheld your right to commit suici
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.
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.
Morality? What morality? (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud this decision, but it really pisses me off when banning pornography is referred to as ``legislating morality''. It's not about Morality, it's about a group of Taliban-wannabes who want to control the private lives of Americans.
In fact, all just laws are based on Morality. Laws against murder, rape, assault, burglary, etc. are all based on Morality. Laws banning pornography, regulating so-called decency, banning drug use, establishing patents, etc. are not based on Morality. In fact, the latter category of laws are all highly Immoral.
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:Yay for free speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay for free speech... (Score:2, Insightful)
When you look at porn, your not restricting anybody elses freedoms. When you kill somebody, your restricting somebody elses freedom to live.
Re:Yay for free speech... (Score:2)
Re:Yay for free speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't murder because it involves violating someone's rights.
Can't have sex with children because it is an abuse of the obligations of authority.
Can't attack people on the street because it involves violating someone's rights.
Decent laws are written with protecting rights in mind. These laws are wholely separate from laws written with preventing the "offending of polite sensibilities."
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:3, Insightful)
Actually, only #3 is a question of morality. The rest is a question of fear. People make these laws so they won't have their stuff stolen, be murdered, or be attacked in the street.
Pretty much every state in history that has had laws had these 3. The child abuse thing is a relative question of morality (not condoning it, just saying th
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 ke
Re:Rob Black is scum (Score:2)
Re:Rob Black is scum (Score:2)
Re:Thank You! (Score:2)
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
Related topic (Censorship) reformatted :) (Score:3, Insightful)
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intellige
Re:The goal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, think before you type, especially after touting how illogical people are.
Murder happens to *also* be an immoral act. However the law is not concerned with its morality as much as with the fact that it adversely affects another person.
To put it in another words. Just because an illegal activity happens to be immoral does not imply that a connection between legality and morality.
Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the one area where both the Democrats and Republicans piss me off the most.
The democrats are being hypocrites as they are the ones always yelling about the republicans legislating morality, when what is welfare but moral legislation to force it citizenry to care for those less well off.
And the repubulicans are just as bad yammering about keeping government from over regulating and restricting our freedoms, and then they turn around and support laws which restrict our freedoms with regard to activities were there is no force/coercion/victim.
You can have the best reasoning skills in the world, and if your initial premises are flawed, you conclusion will be wrong every time.
I just wish people would really take the time to think about the consequences and effects of all this legislation, instead of the indulging the knee jerk, liberal pandering to "society's needy", and the conservative drive to a theocratic tyranny.
Goverment is supposed protect us from others, not take care of us, and not protect us from ourselves.
Anything else is an abuse of liberty!
Re:Strange (Score:3, Insightful)
Upholding people's rights. Rights may be moral principles, but not all moral principles are rights.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, my friend. Or in this cause, absence of the 10 Commandments is not proof that an opposing view is being endorsed.
The lack of ANY religious monument in front of a courthouse means the government is not condoning ANY belief; if we followed your argument, then not having the 10 Commandments present would mean the government is endorsing atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto-ism, etc... But it's not. Not having a plaque of the 10 Commandments in front of the building just means the government is actually following the establishment clause of the Constitution.
How pissed would YOU be if we had a scripture from the Korean or Torah in front of a courthouse? How pissed would YOU be if before every court-session, the presiding Judge recited a passage from the Koran?
Think about that; now why is it suddenly ok if we replaced the word "Koran" with the word "Bible" in the preceding sentence?