Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch XXX
I am only following the definition of Obscene material bro... I dont play in the gray line
-------------------------------------------
The current definition of obscenity requires the application of a three-part test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the so-called "Miller Test," a jury from the jurisdiction where an obscenity charge is brought will decide whether the content in question is obscene by asking:
"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
------------------------------------------------------------
C/mon man, I dont feel like arguing. 
|
LOL sorry man didn't wanna come off like I was arguing
I understand what you are saying...I just hope you realize that we are all playing in the gray areas here.
The internet has opened us up to so much opportunity but it opens us up to even more liability...as kimmykim says she can find a court somewhere in this country that will convict any website on obscenity...and I believe it can and will happen.
This is why we have to protect free speech...even the ugly parts
I think the courts know what "CP" is and isn't...and I think they've ruled wisely in this decision.