Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
If content is displayed in the public, like Janet Jackson's nipple, then it is fair game to apply "community standards", because it involves the public locality. But what goes on in the privacy of one's home, no matter how vile or obscene the viewing of the content, it is that ADULT individual's right to view such content, which is the same right as the content producer to create that content.
|
Okay, round two for the day, i guess.
Janet's nipple was an issue ONLY because it appeared on broadcast TV, which is subject to very strict censorship regulations because it is a finite public resource - the FCC has been given pretty much unlimited power to control what happens in that space. They have set the bar high, and that is that.
The same show on HBO wouldn't have gotten a blink out of anyone (except maybe a few comments about her ugly nipple rings.).
That being said, there are limits to everything. We know that things like snuff films are out, example, as is CP (well, most of of us have, but that is another thread, isn't it?). We know where truly out of bounds is. We also are pretty confident where in bounds is as well (sexy girls, guy fucks girl, girl fucks girl, boy fucks boy, group fucks group, etc).
In between those two realities are people like Max, Lizzie Borden, and a few others pushing on the limits. When you push the limits, sometimes the rope snaps.
Max's case will be interesting mostly from the standpoint of the internet stuff. The basis of obscenity in the US is "community standards" - something that has not been defined for the internet as of yet. Further, from a more technical standpoint, who in fact creates that "transport over interstate lines"? Would the material on the website have been shown in Tampa without someone there going to the webserver and having it delivered? Did Max's company commit any overt act to transport the material, or was the transportation done at the bidding and at the order of the person who received it?
What community applies to a server in California that is hosted by a company in Nevada that is owned by two guys living in New York and is a subsidary of a Isle of Man based company (none of this is real, just an example of how dumb this could get)? Why would all these other liberal jurisdictions be held to the most stringent and most conservative choices of Tampa? When you go online, do you remain part of your community, or do you become part of some other community?
The DVDs mailed are likely going to be the big issue, the "slam dunk" part of the deal, and I would expect it to at worst come out 2 count guilty or not guilty (the DVDs) and 8 counts dropped because nobody wants to fight this to the supreme court.