How the DOJ really defines obscenity: - GoFuckYourself.com

jimthefiend · 12-31-2003, 09:43 AM

ignorant asses, this thread:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=214907

is utter fucking nonsense. the supreme court uses this:

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."

essentially its left to the states, and to a smaller degree; cities and countys to define obscenity using their own community standards.

amazing to me how little some of you people actually KNOW about the legalities of what you do.

stocktrader23 · 12-31-2003, 09:45 AM

So tell me any porn that would "appeal to the prurient interest" of any community.

I can think of none.

Nysus · 12-31-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend
...

essentially its left to the states, and to a smaller degree; cities and countys to define obscenity using their own community standards.

...

If you're in Nevada you're not even really safe though, because the internet allows everyone from everywhere to access it. Mind you, if they find it offensive, they shouldn't have gone to it.. but yeah.

Cheers,
Matt

jimthefiend · 12-31-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23
So tell me any porn that would "appeal to the prurient interest" of any community.

I can think of none.

PRURIENT INTEREST - A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

thats what the courts use

edit: and for the dumbasses thats left to each jurisdiction to define for itself in most cases

EZRhino · 12-31-2003, 09:50 AM

The legal angles to this are endless.

jimthefiend · 12-31-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by EZRhino
The legal angles to this are endless.

they are indeed, youll find hundreds of cases challenging that litmus test, but the court ruled and thats about it

Ice · 12-31-2003, 09:57 AM

ok jim ... you might win a camera with this thread... I don't know though... if someone said they picked their nose and it came out looking like Jenna Jameson you might lose

jimthefiend · 12-31-2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iceicebaby
ok jim ... you might win a camera with this thread... I don't know though... if someone said they picked their nose and it came out looking like Jenna Jameson you might lose

my cat caughed up a hairball last night that looks like ron jeremy
think i should start a thread?

Ice · 12-31-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

my cat caughed up a hairball last night that looks like ron jeremy
think i should start a thread?

hmmmm... definate front runner thread topic... post a pic of said hairball and let the people of GFY decide

fyrflygrl · 12-31-2003, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

PRURIENT INTEREST - A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

Cool thread

I'm in East Tennessee, where, according to your definition of 'Prurient interest', the missionary position *might* make it past the local community as *not too* obscene ;)

Given the three deciding factors you've listed, my first line of defense would be using something that isn't illegal in our area.... like bestiality.

Of course I'd have to get a real lawyer..... but in fantasy land.. I can defend myself and even WIN!

Fyrflygrl

jimthefiend · 12-31-2003, 10:10 AM

In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 820 (1996), was presented with the issue of defining "community" in order to determine whether materials that had been transported over the Internet were obscene.

Defendants, a husband and wife, operated a computer bulletin board system (BBS) from their home in California. A postal inspector in Tennessee became a member of their service and subsequently received images by means of a computer and by mail. These materials depicted a wide variety of sexual conduct, including bestiality, torture and excretory fetishism. The couple was convicted by a jury in the Western District of Tennessee for violating federal obscenity laws [18 USC 1462 and 1465] in connection with their operation of their BBS.

The couple appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit. Their appeal was based on the assertion (among other grounds) that the trial venue was improper because it was in Memphis, where undercover Federal agents accessed and downloaded files, not in California; and it was unclear which community's standards should apply in determining whether the contents of a nationally-accessible BBS are obscene.

In upholding the convictions, the Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that the materials should have been judged by the community standards of California rather than Tennessee. The Court stated (in part): "Furthermore, it is well established that there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent."

In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the Child Online Protection Act because the law, which restricts children's access to obscene-for-minors material on the World Wide Web, uses "community standards" in determining whether sex material is obscene for minors. In 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit (Ashhahahahaha v. ACLU, No. 00-1293), with five judges concluding that federal obscenity laws were not unconstitutional as applied to the Internet solely because obscenity laws require application of community standards.

how many people actually have read that?

jimthefiend · 12-31-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

"Furthermore, it is well established that there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent."

bump

DrtySweeet · 12-31-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iceicebaby

hmmmm... definate front runner thread topic... post a pic of said hairball and let the people of GFY decide

good one..

12-31-2003, 09:43 AM	#1
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	How the DOJ really defines obscenity: ignorant asses, this thread: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=214907 is utter fucking nonsense. the supreme court uses this: 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." essentially its left to the states, and to a smaller degree; cities and countys to define obscenity using their own community standards. amazing to me how little some of you people actually KNOW about the legalities of what you do.

12-31-2003, 09:45 AM	#2
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	So tell me any porn that would "appeal to the prurient interest" of any community. I can think of none. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

12-31-2003, 09:57 AM	#7
Ice Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunny California Posts: 26,053	ok jim ... you might win a camera with this thread... I don't know though... if someone said they picked their nose and it came out looking like Jenna Jameson you might lose __________________ icq 1904905

12-31-2003, 09:50 AM	#5
EZRhino Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: couch Posts: 6,258	The legal angles to this are endless.

12-31-2003, 10:10 AM	#11
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 820 (1996), was presented with the issue of defining "community" in order to determine whether materials that had been transported over the Internet were obscene. Defendants, a husband and wife, operated a computer bulletin board system (BBS) from their home in California. A postal inspector in Tennessee became a member of their service and subsequently received images by means of a computer and by mail. These materials depicted a wide variety of sexual conduct, including bestiality, torture and excretory fetishism. The couple was convicted by a jury in the Western District of Tennessee for violating federal obscenity laws [18 USC 1462 and 1465] in connection with their operation of their BBS. The couple appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit. Their appeal was based on the assertion (among other grounds) that the trial venue was improper because it was in Memphis, where undercover Federal agents accessed and downloaded files, not in California; and it was unclear which community's standards should apply in determining whether the contents of a nationally-accessible BBS are obscene. In upholding the convictions, the Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that the materials should have been judged by the community standards of California rather than Tennessee. The Court stated (in part): "Furthermore, it is well established that there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the Child Online Protection Act because the law, which restricts children's access to obscene-for-minors material on the World Wide Web, uses "community standards" in determining whether sex material is obscene for minors. In 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit (Ashhahahahaha v. ACLU, No. 00-1293), with five judges concluding that federal obscenity laws were not unconstitutional as applied to the Internet solely because obscenity laws require application of community standards. how many people actually have read that?