Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
"obscene" isn't an obscure "notion" - the Miller Test and case law give you a pretty clear idea of what criteria something must meet to be obscene.. furthermore, the supreme court has ruled that each community has the right to decide for themselves what "obscene" is..
imagine that!!!
democracy in action.
the judges in their wisdom understood that since every community is different and has different values, they should have the right to decide for themselves what is obscene.
crazy notion.
sounds a lot like freedom to me.
|
1) The Miller test and case law give a reasonably intelligent person absolutely no fucking clue about what criteria would cause something to be obscene.
The fact that you can't possibly know whether or not you've broken the law until after you've broken it is quite a conundrum. Any reasonable person would agree with that.
Since you fancy yourself such an expert on the law, perhaps you could share with us your views on the vagueness doctrine and why you don't think it applies to obscenity law?
FWIW, the Miller Test is from a Supreme Court decision in the 1970's. In 1856, The court ruled seven to two against Dred Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.
I suppose that people who thought this decision was unconstitutional and would probably be overturned by a later court with different justices were just juvenile selfish idiots like those of us who think obscenity laws in their current form are unconstitutional?
2) The problem is,
which community gets to decide?
The community where it is produced? The community where it is shipped? The community where it was processed? The community where a postal sorting hub happens to be that the material passed through?
If Max had been tried in the "community" where he produced the material, he walks and we all know that.
Instead he was tried in the community that the government decided to order the material from. In terms of the internet charges, he was charged in the community where the government decided to plug in their computer.
Therefore, if your material can't pass the Miller test in every "community" in the upper 48, (including places like the Mormon compounds in Utah) you risk doing hard time. Yet you think those of us who think obscenity laws have constitutional problems are the ones being unreasonable?