Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Swallowing cum would be obscene, and the producer sent to PRISON, if 12 people chosen at random all agreed that it was obscene. Those 12 people have no guidelines or direction to decide if it is obscene or not, just their own gut feelings. Damn, I do not like the idea of that. Anything can be obscene under the regime we live under right now. As I said earlier, in 1950 it would not be hard to get 12 people to determine that eating pussy was obscene but right now most of us now don't see anything obscene about it at all! That moving line is what keeps free expression limited to what the majority thinks is acceptable at the time, and free expression should not be limited to freedom to express what the majority wishes. Free expression protects the minority, not the majority.
|
Sure... was always amazed at what was published when the "commercial net" started around 95/96. It appeared to be only a matter of time before an obscenity case started rolling.
Remember chatting to Gregg P on this in the late 90's where he was thinking the moment there was a political need to have a series of prosecutions - this would happen. In many ways, the net side has had a calm ride from obscenity prosecution.
Since these times - a few people have pushed up the "marketing", - how much further they elect to push it may be the controlling factor in how long they sit in a jail cell. Tho totally agree on the "political popularity" of prosecutions - some folks would sell out their grandmother for a dollar
