GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - PA Attorney General Orders ISP's to Block 423 Adult Sites

UnseenWorld · 04-11-2003, 04:03 PM

I find this whole thing curious. Under our strange way of adjudicating obscenity (and remember: pornography is legal, obscenity is not), nothing is known to be obscene until a judge or jury determines it to be so. Thus, I'm wondering if the sites in question have been determined to be so by a judge or jury, or is it the determination of the Attorney General that they might be determined to be obscene if brought into court? Or is this just prior censorship pure and simple.

I'm opposed to CP, but I also believe we have a judicial system to make determinations like this.

Now, of course, if these sites are located offshore in Russia or some other country which doesn't seem to do a good job of policing this stuff, I'm not sure how to handle it, but I do know I don't like the idea of some individual sitting in his office somewhere making these kinds of decisions with no actual legal process going on.

Of course, the Attorney General has a point that to provide a list would in effect be disseminating CP, but such may be the consequence of Freedom of Information law. I know that an obliquely-related comparable situation cropped up in a nearby suburb, when the police busted a dancer bar whose dancers had crossed the line and were doing obscene acts on stage. In court, they documented these acts with video tapes. After the case was done, the Prosecutor's office found itself in the strange position of distributing pornography when there was a rush of people requesting copies of the tape evidence under Freedom of Information.

Just remember what Bill Maher said, "When they come to take your rights away, they'll do so in the name of protecting the children" and "It seems like the Constitution goes right out the window when children are involved."

04-11-2003, 04:03 PM
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	I find this whole thing curious. Under our strange way of adjudicating obscenity (and remember: pornography is legal, obscenity is not), nothing is known to be obscene until a judge or jury determines it to be so. Thus, I'm wondering if the sites in question have been determined to be so by a judge or jury, or is it the determination of the Attorney General that they might be determined to be obscene if brought into court? Or is this just prior censorship pure and simple. I'm opposed to CP, but I also believe we have a judicial system to make determinations like this. Now, of course, if these sites are located offshore in Russia or some other country which doesn't seem to do a good job of policing this stuff, I'm not sure how to handle it, but I do know I don't like the idea of some individual sitting in his office somewhere making these kinds of decisions with no actual legal process going on. Of course, the Attorney General has a point that to provide a list would in effect be disseminating CP, but such may be the consequence of Freedom of Information law. I know that an obliquely-related comparable situation cropped up in a nearby suburb, when the police busted a dancer bar whose dancers had crossed the line and were doing obscene acts on stage. In court, they documented these acts with video tapes. After the case was done, the Prosecutor's office found itself in the strange position of distributing pornography when there was a rush of people requesting copies of the tape evidence under Freedom of Information. Just remember what Bill Maher said, "When they come to take your rights away, they'll do so in the name of protecting the children" and "It seems like the Constitution goes right out the window when children are involved." __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.