Is it better for the Adult business if...

interesting topic

8 of out ten of the comandments are not even legally practical.

He can move the fucking thing into his office, but otherwise get it out of my potential sight.

I think religion is stupid.
Good luck at winning the DVD.

it is a mental illness.

Well if you think that the freedom of speech issue isn't in a no win situation here, then explain your stance.

on the one hand states rights wins out, then every state will be able to regulate the adult industry as to there own standards...


on the other hand if Federal law wins then the federal goverment will be able to win victory's in the upcoming obscenity prosecutions...under the same auspice.

I think if the government tells us how to fuck, we should be able to go to their houses and tell them how to fuck their wife.. or secratary or legal aid

Not gonna happen with this thread.

i think states should be able to govern them selfs within reason, however i think religion has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in government.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that it is an either or situation with obscenity prosecutions and the jurisdiction.

The federal government has very little ground to stand on with obscenity, since the only thing it regulates is underage content, and things like wire fraud or interstate commerce.

States on the other hand, have the right, with the funding support of the feds, to prosecute anyone they wish to for obscene materials since the inherent nature of the Miller Test means that what is fine in LA might not go over well in La... and while people may get a pass on a conviction in one state, they can always try them in a different state.

UNTIL... there is a precedent that will hold firm regarding the status of the internet and digitally downloaded content being part of its own community that supersedes state and local, and to some extent, national borders.

Which is what everyone better be hoping for out of the Extreme case, regardless of what else happens to them. The last thing we need is for Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma to start prosecuting with impunity any site that can be downloaded to their state.

From a business standpoint, you'd have to IP sort and block certain states which would hurt sales as more states were added to the list of blocks.

George Bush covers naked statues with panties, now thats whacked.

opium is the religion of the masses.

NICE!!!!

What KK said

I live here and I gotta tell you, it's a whole other world deep in the "bible belt".

Alabama is a little behind the times.

yup, i agree with kk, i think

isn't there a current case in australia against the nytimes that could play a part in a redefining of community?

i don't see how it could come down to each individual state v. the world

Very good post Kimmy.

States have a lot of power. As many of you know, I was in the biz when phone sex services first came into being and at that time there were no laws on the books yet to specifically regulate this new method of adult entertainment distribution over the telephone.

When we consulted with our attorneys, we inquired what laws do we go by here. Is it the states where our equipment is located in California and Philly, both major cities where things are loose and liberal compared to bible belt states? Is it the conservative midwest state where AT&T's network center was located. Or is it the unknown state where the person's telephone is located. It was a difficult question and none of the lawyers agreed on what would ultimately rule. One said just do moaning sounds and don't use the F word and terms with that type of sexual intensity for example. Another said don't describe penis to vagina insertions in detail. It all seemed so utterly ludicrous at the time. But being young, we ended up thinking fuck it, if there are no specific phone sex laws, we'll deal with it when and if anything happens.

So we decided to take some risk, do basic hardcore, nothing too extreme, and just see where that path would take us. We ended up not having any legal problems, until one day we get this scary C&D letter, which was very strong in its tone, from the AG's office in PA stating we were distributing hardcore adult entertainment that was in their opinion obscene and that if we didn't terminate our phone services within 24 hours, we would be subject to a fine of $75,000 PER DAY, and they would initiate a full criminal obscenity prosecution against us. They told us they had been taping our phone messages for months and had sufficient evidence recorded to justify that our content was obscene. The whole thing seemed legally questionable and we inquired under what specific state laws they were basing these charges, since we knew there weren't any. We didn't get a clear cut answer and knew ok these folks are just reaching for straws with this approach figuring we'll succumb without a fight.

Now if you heard our phone sex back then, it were so lame sounding compared to what's out there in today's adult market it would be laughable. So we really had a hard time accepting the charges, but never the less, the monetary fines they said they would impose spooked us bad, and we figured would easily go into the millions so we complied and shut down til we could sort things out with them legally and get a clear determination what was allowable and what wouldn't be acceptable on a phone sex call.

Everything ended up working out with them. We weren't fined nor charged. We took a professional, compliant and non-hostile approach and ended up eventually getting the phone sex services back on in the following year with some censorship guidelines in place.

Ironically, it ended up being a positive incident, since we got into mainstream pay per call as a result of that legal problem period and made more money creating phone services the whole family could use and enjoy.

I think the interesting point of this case is:
which is more important:
freedom of speech or the seperation of church and state...

while I'm against the monument only because it is a publicly paid for building that it's near, I feel compelled to uphold the freedom of speech of the people who put it there...

Even though I am an agnostic and don't have a deity I pray to, I wholeheartedly believe in the freedom of religion. If this were a statue in a judge's office and he paid for the statue, then I'd have no problems with it.

I would have the same problem if a satanist wanted to put up an altar of sacrifice in front of a government building...

If we allow the ten commandments then why not a statue of budha and maybe a nice vishnu statue as well?

It would become impossible to enter the building due to thousdans of shrines and religious symbols...

I agree. How can there be 36+ gods?

FFS people should wake up, Religion is a scam.

yeah

You can't have one without the other.....they are interdependent.

how about they stop using our tax money taking all this shit through the courts and actually spend that money on catching 'real' criminals

im not bothered if it stays or if it goes, its a fucking statue fer christs sake

they should stop wasting our time and money on this issue which is complete bullshit, im all for seperation of church and state but lets be honest, this isnt costing the church half as much as it is the state

he has a point! get this man a stiff drink.

a-fuckin-men!

The irony of that line..,.


Actually it is a big ass monument of the ten commandments, which in itself is technically a sin. Something about idolatry.

Now lets look them over for relevance.

1. I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME. - seems out of place now doesnt it. What if your hendu or a budist going into court? Has zero legal relevance.

2. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN. - Ive tried injecting it before, make you all hyper and gives you cravings to listen to DC talk. No legal relevance.

3. REMEMBER THOU KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY. - Ok aside from screwing up football, and we all already know the courts are generally closed on weekends, this has zero legal relevance.

4. HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER. - love to see that on my way into the court room to tell the judge daddy touches me. Come on, good idea no legal relevance.

5. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. - ok good one. Basic legal relevance unless you somehow are in a captial case then well keep in mind that the same court who is following number 3, will sentance you to number 5.

6. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. - Unless Daddy tells you to do it remember number 4 kiddies. Zero legal relevance.

7. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. - good one, legally relevant.

8. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. - No gossiping or fibbing, remember everything in court is always true, minimal legal relevance.

9. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE. - Just his wife? Thanks so kids are ok right? Isnt this covered in number 6? Zero legal relevance.

10. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS. - Oh boy, do not wish for a better life, so what if your neighbor has a jag and you have a bug. Zero legal relevance and almost downright anti American.

I think we are missing the point here. This is a simple case of seperation of church and state. The government owns the building which in turns means it should not be a church or have anything having to do with any religion in there. If the government allowed this monument to stay they would have to allow any other monuments based on any other religions to be placed there also. And I highly doubt these people in Alabama would like some of the things that would be placed there.

The seperation of curch and state is the main issue that is being presented by this case.

However, as with ALL legal cases that are tried, it allows a precedent to be set. That may be argued in another case.

This underlying precedent is what concerns me more regarding this case.

I am wondering will states rights to determine the "standards of there community" prevail? or will the Federal system overide the states rights issue here in this case?

This is what lawyers for or against states rights are watching, to give them a reasonable point of fact to argue when it is the merits of their issues that they are arguing. i.e. Obscenity, Medical MJ, right to own firearms,.....


As far as the seperation of church and state issue goes, someone needs to remind these guys, that this country was founded on the basis of escaping religous persecutions as one of it's core principles!

This is why when they say in God we trust, on the money. It is not listed to be a specific GOD ..... it does not say in Jesus we trust, or in Jehova we trust.... it is only implyed to mean the Christian GOD ... as with everything in the Law... you must be specific, or leave it open to interpretation, and assumption.

It is simple really.

State law trumps federal law (or it should), but constitutional law always trumps state or federal as it should.

very interesting thread

Fuck Fear -- Drink Beer. SCSA

I think it would have been a better argument - not necessarily a winning one though - to claim that the monument was symbolic of the history of law rather than religiously symbolic. I could go for that.

I could do without the good Chief Justice of Alabama preaching the necessity of the acknowledgement of God from the steps of the Judicial Building.

Someone already brought up the money issue, and I agree.

We all know where this will end. The monument will be removed for good.

I liken this to the idiot school systems around this country who every year try to push the prayer at the football game issue.

Some kid will be written up in Christian magazines and held up on Christian tv shows for being a "hero" and standing up for Christ and the school will back him/her.

Meanwhile the school system ends up spending the precious few dollars they have for educating these kids on defending a hopeless cause.

I have said it before.
Give those that feel the need for these kinds of things to exist *religious statues, prayer in school/football games* these very things....however with the caveat that if Bobbie Sue gets to pray before the big football game this Friday night little Sunshine Johnson gets to say a Wiccan prayer the following Friday night, following each week with a new prayer from a different religion.

Christians would not go for that at all.
Because they do not believe in freedom of religion, they believe in freedom of THEIR religion.