Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
A prosecutor (either county or state)...in all states...is the initial determiner of what is "obscene" based upon what he believes violates community standards and in some states his determination will be placed before a Grand Jury then they become the determiner of what they believe violates community standards. At trial in most states seat a jury of 12 (some states have a jury of 6) then they become the determiners of what they believe violates community standards.
The prosecutor does not have to prove that members of your community do not view porn (btw...it is a relatively small percentage of people that view porn on any kind of regular basis) and the prosecutor does not have to prove that the pornographer knew that his product was "obscene". All a prosecutor has to do is have a jury agree that it is obscene.
That is our system...that is the law as decided by the Federal Supreme court.
|
I understand how the court system works.
The prosecutor doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want, but Miller vs California clearly states that the porn has to lack artistic value and be against community standards for obscenity. If a signifigant percent of the population in the community views the type of pornography being presented, it is hard to judge that it is against community standards. But you're right, it's up to a jury decide. A jury could convict me of a video of me and a girl kissing as being obscene.
As for stating that the pornographer doesn't need to know whether his material is obscene, simply read up Smith vs California that states otherwise as to protect the chilling effect on speech that may be protected.
Either way, it's a fascist law and ruling.