GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Free sites will be illegal??? Supreme court

codymc12 · 10-15-2003, 07:29 PM

I shred it because that's what will happen in a court of law if someone decides to apply it to my sites or my business.

You can keep the 'adult web' broad and vague - but it will only remain so until the target becomes you. Then it's not broad and vague at all. It's specific, and all the 'prosal dissection' becomes a reality.

Is it LIKELY that you or I will come under the gun? No. Is POSSIBLE? Yes. Does the passage of this law make that possibility not only higher, but more enforceable? YES.

Look, based on the current definition of obscenity, EVERYTHING we do is illegal. Every paysite, and every free site. Whether or not that is enforced is reliant on a few factors: the DOJ priorities, the jury sitting on your case, luck, and the biggest one: whether or not they (the DOJ or local authorities) think your case is winnable. The last is probably the biggest factor, as you need to win to remain politically viable.

This law restricts adult expression on the web, period. It increases the overall risk level on the above factors.

As a last note, the comparison between online and offline is apples and oranges, and is, in fact, the whole basis behind the current injunction against enforcing this law. Here's what the Phil Circuit court said in their decision:

"When contemporary community standards are applied to the Internet, which does not permit speakers or exhibitors to limit their speech or exhibits geographically, the statute effectively limits the range of permissible material under the statute to that which is deemed acceptable only by the most puritanical communities," the appeals court ruled, noting that this limitation by definition "burdens speech otherwise protected under the First Amendment for adults as well as for minors living in more tolerant settings."

That's not MY paranoia - that's a bunch of judges being paranoid FOR me, my first amendment rights, and taking into account the possible injustices that can occur in enforcement of such a law.

Real world video stores, adult stores, etc, don't have the problems this law poses for us.

Besides, looking at it from a pragmatic view is the wrong way to look. You say that the government doesn't have the time or manpower. That shouldn't be the test. The test should be: If they DID have the time, money and manpower - would they?

In our case, the answer is yes, they would.

10-15-2003, 07:29 PM
codymc12 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 719	I shred it because that's what will happen in a court of law if someone decides to apply it to my sites or my business. You can keep the 'adult web' broad and vague - but it will only remain so until the target becomes you. Then it's not broad and vague at all. It's specific, and all the 'prosal dissection' becomes a reality. Is it LIKELY that you or I will come under the gun? No. Is POSSIBLE? Yes. Does the passage of this law make that possibility not only higher, but more enforceable? YES. Look, based on the current definition of obscenity, EVERYTHING we do is illegal. Every paysite, and every free site. Whether or not that is enforced is reliant on a few factors: the DOJ priorities, the jury sitting on your case, luck, and the biggest one: whether or not they (the DOJ or local authorities) think your case is winnable. The last is probably the biggest factor, as you need to win to remain politically viable. This law restricts adult expression on the web, period. It increases the overall risk level on the above factors. As a last note, the comparison between online and offline is apples and oranges, and is, in fact, the whole basis behind the current injunction against enforcing this law. Here's what the Phil Circuit court said in their decision: "When contemporary community standards are applied to the Internet, which does not permit speakers or exhibitors to limit their speech or exhibits geographically, the statute effectively limits the range of permissible material under the statute to that which is deemed acceptable only by the most puritanical communities," the appeals court ruled, noting that this limitation by definition "burdens speech otherwise protected under the First Amendment for adults as well as for minors living in more tolerant settings." That's not MY paranoia - that's a bunch of judges being paranoid FOR me, my first amendment rights, and taking into account the possible injustices that can occur in enforcement of such a law. Real world video stores, adult stores, etc, don't have the problems this law poses for us. Besides, looking at it from a pragmatic view is the wrong way to look. You say that the government doesn't have the time or manpower. That shouldn't be the test. The test should be: If they DID have the time, money and manpower - would they? In our case, the answer is yes, they would.