Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
if he loses, then it sets the precedent that cities and states can define what is obscene to their "community standards", and would put a chilling effect on all porn.
"softcore" or "mainstream" porn can be "obscene" by folks who don't like any resemblance to human fornication. So while Max's video are probably very hard for the jury to watch, and they will probably fine no artistic value in them at all in being grossed out, it is up to sirkin and douglas to remind the jury and the judge about the law and to return the not guilty verdict.
The impact affects both dvd and internet folks. for websites, some guy in some po-dunk town could be truly enjoying the internet video, but some hard-on whacko may have an agenda to rid the world of porn and start badgering his DA to follow suit and file suit like the Max Hardcore case.
Fight the analysis!
|
The government already has a definition of what is obscene -- it's the Miller test. It's vague, unclear, and worded in a way that is unhelpful to those trying to comply wut the standard, but it has been upheld by the court, again and again.
If you look at state and local obscenity laws, their definition of obscenity generally mirrors the Miller test almost exactly. This is not coincidence -- it is because anything more specific and exact than Miller generally gets shot down in court. The government cannot get *too* specific about what sex acts and types of depictions are patently illegal... I'm not qualified to do the constitutional law analysis to explain the reason
why they cannot get more specific, but suffice to say that it isn't as simple as saying "no fisting."
Obscenity cases differ from other criminal cases in at least one important way: the nature of the crime and the statutory definition of "obscene" being what they are, there's little precedent that can be set as to what forms of depictions are patently illegal. Each case rises and falls on its own merits, and the "community standard" as determined by the jury in question.
That's kind of the whole point of Miller; each community decides for itself, on a case by case basis, what is or is not obscene. Sure, if the Tampa jury finds one way or the other, that could prove useful or harmful to one side or the other in future obscenity prosecutions within Tampa, but this jury's ruling has no real relevance to, say, a jury empaneled in Leeds, Alabama two years from now.
Also, as for California being "safe," tell that to Ira Isaacs, who is under indictment on obscenity charges in Los Angeles right now. Don't confuse the fact that paying porn actresses to perform is not considered prostitution under California law with the notion that producers in California are somehow safe from possible obscenity prosecution there.... totally different and separate issue.
- Q.