fisting laws - GoFuckYourself.com

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 07:35 PM

www.xxxlaw.com

Joe Obenberger is the one to ask on this matter.

emthree · 06-16-2004, 08:27 PM

How many joins for some fisting action?

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:35 PM

sorry the correct url is www.xxxlaw.net

Juicy D. Links · 06-16-2004, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emthree
How many joins for some fisting action?

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:42 PM

fisting obscenity laws

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mary34d
fisting obscenity laws

Part One: The Multifaceted Risks of Obscenity Law

This is the first of two articles in a series designed to help new and amateur webmasters understand and apply some basic principles of legal risk avoidance. The first article, which follows, deals exclusively with one topic, the law of obscenity; The second article will cover a great many more varied topics.

The law of obscenity in the United States is an immense area with many distinctive principles that are different in important ways from the laws governing other kinds of human conduct. Neither this article nor any other article or book, can pretend to give you a full explanation, in depth, of obscenity law as it is applied in the modern era. It does not pretend to do so. Moreover, the Internet is still a new means of publishing with distinctive features that only now are first being addressed by the law. The principles that will govern obscenity prosecutions are yet emerging. Accordingly, this article is intended instead only as a lighthouse and beacon to generally warn the reader of the most dangerous areas that require skilled navigation and great care lest you run aground on the reefs and shoals. None of it is any substitute for the kind of careful legal advice and guidance that only a personal and professional relationship with a lawyer can provide.

The adult web has been a place where a relatively modest investment, coupled with talent, applied with perseverance over long hours, can still build a decent livelihood and create some real chance of wealth. As a result, the online adult entertainment industry continues to draw impressive persons into its ranks, bright, industrious, creative people with a sense of adventure. That spirit of adventure and willingness to undertake risk in a climate of Liberty is precisely what has defined America and fostered its many national achievements Like those explorers and pioneers, they share a willingness to incur some risk on the way to achieving their goals.

An Incursion into Foggy Terrain: Obscenity

There are certain unavoidable uncertainties inherent in conducting an online adult business, uncertainties that loom should loom on one level or another in the consciousness of everyone involved in this industry. Chief among these unsettled issues is the tenuous and uncertain line at which constitutionally protected erotic speech can cross the boundary into unprotected criminal obscenity. There is not even a prominent "sign post up ahead" as Rod Serling spoke of, though the place where the adult webmasters and content providers make their living surely can resemble a legal twilight zone, nonetheless. There are no speed limit signs here. It might be convenient for the producer if there was a "three finger" rule or the like, but they just don't exist in the world of adult erotic expression under the First Amendment, and they can't.

This issue becomes critical to content providers and webmasters because, in the economy of attracting customers to a particular site, the appearance is that it is far easier from a technical, marketing, and creative perspective to offer so-called "extreme" content than it is to compete in quality. Apparently painful insertions of anatomical parts and man-made objects into orifices seemingly too small to comfortably accept them, gag-inducing felations, and the like - all passing these days as "extreme content" - will always attract a crowd just as injury car accidents do, and perhaps for the same dark reasons deeply within the human soul. It cannot be categorically stated that graphic depictions of any of the acts that pass as "extreme" are, in isolation from their context, obscene: No fixed rule describing specific conduct as obscene per se could remain fixed for long.

Why There Are No Fast and Fixed Rules Prohibiting Certain Adult Sexual Depictions

This is because there is an important social dimension to free speech under our constitution that makes any such "bright line" rule with respect to adult pornography impossible. One unchanging axiom that runs through all of the Supreme Court cases dealing with obscenity in the modern era is that no work can be proscribed and criminally outlawed if, taken as a whole, it has serious literary, artistic, or scientific value. Were it possible to ban speech with serious value, American society itself would become the victim of censorship though its loss of a work of serious value, and that is a result that the constitution cannot permit.

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:46 PM

The creativity applied in human expression can be so dynamic and so elastic that it is virtually impossible to conceive of a particular sexual act or depiction that categorically could not ever become an essential and integrated part of a work worthy of social acceptance as literature of value. If you can imagine an act that disgusts you, I can imagine a literary setting that would not only justify its graphic depiction, but mandate it: Not only is one man's erotica another man's bellylaugh, but it may be part of yet another person's epic poetry. There is no variety of coupling so degenerate, no rape so vile, no practice so hopelessly perverted, that its graphic depiction could not become the pivotal and defining moment of serious drama in a work that has something of significance to say about the human condition. However, the corollary principle is that it may take quite a bit of contextual value to establish the serious value of a work containing material capable of truly shocking the contemporary viewer. Literary aims, serious literary accomplishment, and mere pretext are all different things; The distinctions among these categories is unlikely to be lost on a prosecutor or a jury. The publication of a serious work of literature in the common domain interspersed with unrelated lurid images of a nature and characher that would otherwise render them obscene is still likely to form an obscene whole. Keep in mind that if the graphic content is extreme enough, it may be close to impossible to imagine, conceive, and execute a work of serious literary value, which simultaneously integrates that extreme content in a real and nonpretextual manner and yet has commercial value and worth in the realm of the contemporary adult internet. The use of images of bestiality comes to mind as one of those extreme matters whose inclusion in a work would present a most serious challenge to the aspiring author of serious nonpretextual literature, and to the advocate in the defense, in any readily imaginable context.

The Inevitable Uncertainty in Identifying the Obscene and Criminal Responsibility

The need under obscenity law to judge both amorphous factors - prurience and serious value - leads to such practical uncertainty that it is essentially impossible to predict reliably, when they are created and published, whether many works, including websites, may be obscene; It is only when the jury returns with a verdict that we can know with any certainty. The obvious and risky implication here is that the web site publisher acts at peril of criminal liability for obscenity when he publishes material to his site, the exact parameters of the Forbidden Zone being unascertainable by him before accusation, trial, and verdict. You should know that it is most definitely not the law that a publisher must realize that the work he publishes is obscene before criminal liability may attach; It is enough that he knows the character and nature of the materials he distributes. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 123 (1974); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896); see also Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767 (1977).

The unfairly vague consequences of this uncertainty was recognized early by at least three justices of the United States Supreme Court, justices who felt, too, that these risks not only chilled free expression impermissibly, but who felt that unposted speed limits are fundamentally and conceptually unfair.

In this context, even the most painstaking efforts to determine in advance whether certain sexually oriented expression is obscene must inevitably prove unavailing. For the insufficiency of the notice compels persons to guess not only whether their conduct is covered by a criminal statute, but also whether their conduct falls within the constitutionally permissible reach of the statute.

- Paris Adult Theatre v. Slayton, Dissent, 413 U.S. 49, 88 (1972)
It is important to note that these words are from a dissent. The state of the law is such that anyone dealing in what he knows to be generally pornographic materials will incur liability for obscenity if a court concludes that one of the works is obscene, and at least one decision suggests liability even for child pornography without any particularized knowledge that a model was underage. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., ___ U.S. ___ (1994).

The Uncertain Condition of "Community Standards" Law

In order for a work to be obscene, it must also, when viewed as a whole, and in light of contemporary community values, both appeal to a prurient interest in sex and also depict sex in a patently offensive way. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1073). At present, we do not know with much precision whose "community standards" may be applied by prosecutors to bring successful obscenity prosecutions against the webmaster. Historically, venue, that is the place of criminal prosecution, the place from which a jury is to be selected to hear a criminal case, and the place whose standards shall be applied in evaluating whether the constitutionally mandated elements of Miller exist to justify a conviction, was the intended destination in the case of mailed material such as videotapes and brochures, and Congress, in the laws governing the mailing of obscene materials, aspired to fix appropriate venue at any place through which the mail traveled. In United States v. Thomas, 1996 FED App. 0032P (6th Cir.), 74 F.3d 701, cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 74. (1996), a case I regard as extreme, and of questionable authority in view of more recent statements from the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit fixed venue in Memphis not only for videotapes mailed to Memphis but for .gif images downloaded in Memphis from a California BBS, without knowledge of the BBS operator that the files were being downloaded in that venue, and the distant and remote defendants were prosecuted and convicted of obscenity under the community standards of Memphis. The jury cannot be expected to apply the community standards of a place whose values are foreign to it, and accordingly, the rule has been that, in criminal obscenity prosecutions, federal courts apply the community standards of the federal district in which they sit - usually several counties of a state, or in less populous states that have only one district, that state - and state courts apply the community standards of the entire state in which they sit, unless the state legislature has, by law, defined the "community" to be a different area, a county for example. However, there seems to be no particular requirement in the law that the exact nature geographical extent of the community be defined for the jury in obscenity prosecutions. See generally Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974).

On April 16, 2002, in Ashhahahahaha v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court gave us at least a glint of a hint of the things to come in regard to community values. It appears that only three members of the Court, Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justices Thomas and Scalia, would permit the application of the standards of local geographical communities so that a webmaster could be convicted under those standards anywhere in the country that his site is viewed. The remaining six justices appear to be gravitating in the direction of a national community standard for evaluating Internet obscenity, though it seems barely possible that juries may permissibly go uninstructed by the judge as to the boundaries of the community whose standards they are to apply. It appears almost certain that the Court will not permit the standards of any community through which the signal is transmitted to control. This case can be confusing for anyone to read because there is no single written opinion that is joined by a majority of the members of the Supreme Court; I have prepared a tabular breakdown of the position of each of the justices, as expressed in the various opinions and concurrences and the dissent, in a table found at www.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/focus.htm. Inasmuch as the application of a community's standards are part of the elements of the offense of obscenity, this confusion also adds to the webmaster's uncertainty.

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:47 PM

No matter how the issue of community standards is ultimately resolved, the development of the Internet is a fundamental change in the ways in which that erotic materials were distributed when Miller and Paris Adult Books were decided, mainly then by mail order and in stores. My view is that the changing media and different circumstances have only intensified the merit of the dissenters's arguments as to unconstitutional vagueness in obscenity law and lessened whatever wisdom was contained in the majority opinions in those cases. My realistic sense, however, reminds me to be cautious of the generally conservative nature of the present Court's majority.

Some Practical Observations

And though neither I nor anyone else can tell you with precision what is and what is not criminally punishable adult-content obscenity, nor yet even with precision whose laws will apply or can apply to any downloaded material, there are some fundamental concepts, simple principles, that will go far to decrease a webmaster's chances of winding up in Jail. Remember, it is not a videotape or an image or a book or a website that goes on trial for obscenity, it is a person. And it is a person who gets punished, in a punishment that almost always works hardships on spouses, children and other family members.

In my remarks at Internext in January, 2002 (and in my article summarizing those remarks, The Seven Circles of Internet Content Hell, found on www.xxxlaw.net) I explained my basic principle of risk avoidance in adult content: The closer erotic content material resembles the broad American understanding of what men and women who like each other do for and with one another when they are alone to please one another, or when they are alone, the safer the material is from the perspective of obscenity law. The further material diverges from this societal icon, the riskier it becomes. I derive this observation from a principle underlying the decision in Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985): Nothing is obscene which is not prurient, and healthy lust is not prurient.

The depiction of practices that are outside this icon of what Americans expect goes on in healthy but frankly sexual situations is more likely to appear prurient, that is shameful or morbid, and it becomes more dangerous than depictions of practices within the icon. Works that focus on conduct that is degrading or insulting to one or another of the subjects of the work, images that convey abuse, hopelessness, despair, and victimization, are matters that will be identified as such by a prosecutor in support of his argument that they appeal to an unhealthy and prurient interest in sex. This is not to say that content focused on bondage, domination, and sado-masochism cannot be successfully defended on prurience, but the defense must necessarily overcome a popular conception that these practices are aberrant and unhealthy. That will challenge the defense in proportion to the extremity of the images. Depictions of painful, restrained, and forced sexual activity and of the reduction of human beings to objectification as things to be used, abused and exploited, together with bestiality, would all be among the most difficult images to defend.

As the prurient nature and orientation of a site's explicit and graphic content increases, it becomes essential that the online work exhibit serious value as art, literature, or science. For, if its contents are both explicit and extreme enough, both patently offensive and prurient, taken as a whole, and in light of contemporary community standards, all that separates it from criminal obscenity, is that social value.

Keep in mind that there are no magic bullets, no charmed magical robes, that will insulate you from liability. The inclusion of text stories of little or no value, or of sexual health articles, or of guides to unusual sexual practices of the far east related to yoga, or aspiring to teach techniques of penile growth, if not integrated closely into and connected with your imagery, if not formed by your creative process into a whole that has real value, invite the appearance and suggestion of content included only as a pretext to justify the graphic images. Obvious and unconnected pretextual content is unlikely to help in an obscenity defense. Whether the website itself will be the "whole" work to be evaluated for value, or whether, like a magazine, its parts will be evaluated separately, may be a factor you can control as you decide how much integration the various parts of you site will have. Think creatively, with defense of your site as a whole work in mind, as you design it and write it. I believe that the use of offshore servers and business entities are factors far more likely to invite the attention of agencies which are charged with the enforcement of the law, and far more likely to be damning proof of knowingly criminal intent, than they are likely to protect you.

There should come a point of self-restraint when the risks of criminal prosecution for violating this unposted speed limit become apparent and palpable in a reasonable mind. It is hard, though, for any webmaster to keep the necessary perspective with objectivity, and harder still for the actual content provider and designer to maintain perspective and objectivity over the own work, and this alone is an important reason for independent content review by a lawyer practicing in the area of adult content. A content lawyer is not a censor and he or she cannot and will not tell you what you can and cannot do. A skilled content lawyer can, however, with independence, objectivity, and experience that you will find hard to locate elsewhere, candidly advise you just how risky the site appears. A good content lawyer will also make suggestions toward literary or artistic development that will both enhance the actual social value and appeal of your site and provide some defense ammunition in case of a criminal prosecution for obscenity.

Joe Obenberger is a Chicago Loop lawyer concentrating in the law of free expression and liberty under the United States Constitution, and his firm has represented many owners, employees, and customers of adult-oriented businesses, both online and in the real world. He represents and advises websites in many regions of the United States and in Canada. He can be reached in the office at 312 558-6420 or paged in any emergency at 312 250-4118. His e-mail address is [email protected]. His website URL on the World Wide Web is www.xxxlaw.net.

Joesho · 06-16-2004, 08:48 PM

do you know who did the fisting shot?

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joesho
do you know who did the fisting shot?

no! wish i saw it.

ok, back to my DUH, i didn't start college when i was 15 yrs old online persona

Joesho · 06-16-2004, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mary34d
no! wish i saw it.

ok, back to my DUH, i didn't start college when i was 15 yrs old online persona

Hey you wanna join 4204L www.4204l.com Take a cool 420 pick for me would ya?

Furious_Male · 06-16-2004, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joesho
do you know who did the fisting shot?

NaughtyAlysha

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...pagen umber=3

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joesho

Hey you wanna join 4204L www.4204l.com Take a cool 420 pick for me would ya?

there's too many joes in this biz i'm getting confused. and btw i though i already joined your site. but no fisting here....ouch

mary34d · 06-16-2004, 09:22 PM

sign me up joesho

kmanrox · 06-16-2004, 09:51 PM

joe, no larger images for us to click on 4204l? i think wm's would DEFINITELY remember it if they could rub one out to the site =)

06-16-2004, 07:35 PM	#1
mary34d Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Northern Cuba Posts: 3,358	fisting laws www.xxxlaw.com Joe Obenberger is the one to ask on this matter. __________________ The guys at CJ Bucks will do absolutely anything to get your business. You owe it to yourself to at least ask! Free Hosting, Content, etc. CJ Bucks has it all. Sign up! I'll show you my tits now you show me your traffic.

06-16-2004, 08:27 PM	#2
emthree Dialer Kingpin Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New York Posts: 10,816	How many joins for some fisting action? __________________ • Sell Patches & Pills •

06-16-2004, 08:35 PM	#3
mary34d Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Northern Cuba Posts: 3,358	sorry the correct url is www.xxxlaw.net __________________ The guys at CJ Bucks will do absolutely anything to get your business. You owe it to yourself to at least ask! Free Hosting, Content, etc. CJ Bucks has it all. Sign up! I'll show you my tits now you show me your traffic.

06-16-2004, 08:42 PM	#5
mary34d Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Northern Cuba Posts: 3,358	fisting obscenity laws __________________ The guys at CJ Bucks will do absolutely anything to get your business. You owe it to yourself to at least ask! Free Hosting, Content, etc. CJ Bucks has it all. Sign up! I'll show you my tits now you show me your traffic.

06-16-2004, 08:46 PM	#7
mary34d Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Northern Cuba Posts: 3,358	The creativity applied in human expression can be so dynamic and so elastic that it is virtually impossible to conceive of a particular sexual act or depiction that categorically could not ever become an essential and integrated part of a work worthy of social acceptance as literature of value. If you can imagine an act that disgusts you, I can imagine a literary setting that would not only justify its graphic depiction, but mandate it: Not only is one man's erotica another man's bellylaugh, but it may be part of yet another person's epic poetry. There is no variety of coupling so degenerate, no rape so vile, no practice so hopelessly perverted, that its graphic depiction could not become the pivotal and defining moment of serious drama in a work that has something of significance to say about the human condition. However, the corollary principle is that it may take quite a bit of contextual value to establish the serious value of a work containing material capable of truly shocking the contemporary viewer. Literary aims, serious literary accomplishment, and mere pretext are all different things; The distinctions among these categories is unlikely to be lost on a prosecutor or a jury. The publication of a serious work of literature in the common domain interspersed with unrelated lurid images of a nature and characher that would otherwise render them obscene is still likely to form an obscene whole. Keep in mind that if the graphic content is extreme enough, it may be close to impossible to imagine, conceive, and execute a work of serious literary value, which simultaneously integrates that extreme content in a real and nonpretextual manner and yet has commercial value and worth in the realm of the contemporary adult internet. The use of images of bestiality comes to mind as one of those extreme matters whose inclusion in a work would present a most serious challenge to the aspiring author of serious nonpretextual literature, and to the advocate in the defense, in any readily imaginable context. The Inevitable Uncertainty in Identifying the Obscene and Criminal Responsibility The need under obscenity law to judge both amorphous factors - prurience and serious value - leads to such practical uncertainty that it is essentially impossible to predict reliably, when they are created and published, whether many works, including websites, may be obscene; It is only when the jury returns with a verdict that we can know with any certainty. The obvious and risky implication here is that the web site publisher acts at peril of criminal liability for obscenity when he publishes material to his site, the exact parameters of the Forbidden Zone being unascertainable by him before accusation, trial, and verdict. You should know that it is most definitely not the law that a publisher must realize that the work he publishes is obscene before criminal liability may attach; It is enough that he knows the character and nature of the materials he distributes. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 123 (1974); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896); see also Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767 (1977). The unfairly vague consequences of this uncertainty was recognized early by at least three justices of the United States Supreme Court, justices who felt, too, that these risks not only chilled free expression impermissibly, but who felt that unposted speed limits are fundamentally and conceptually unfair. In this context, even the most painstaking efforts to determine in advance whether certain sexually oriented expression is obscene must inevitably prove unavailing. For the insufficiency of the notice compels persons to guess not only whether their conduct is covered by a criminal statute, but also whether their conduct falls within the constitutionally permissible reach of the statute. - Paris Adult Theatre v. Slayton, Dissent, 413 U.S. 49, 88 (1972) It is important to note that these words are from a dissent. The state of the law is such that anyone dealing in what he knows to be generally pornographic materials will incur liability for obscenity if a court concludes that one of the works is obscene, and at least one decision suggests liability even for child pornography without any particularized knowledge that a model was underage. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., ___ U.S. ___ (1994). The Uncertain Condition of "Community Standards" Law In order for a work to be obscene, it must also, when viewed as a whole, and in light of contemporary community values, both appeal to a prurient interest in sex and also depict sex in a patently offensive way. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1073). At present, we do not know with much precision whose "community standards" may be applied by prosecutors to bring successful obscenity prosecutions against the webmaster. Historically, venue, that is the place of criminal prosecution, the place from which a jury is to be selected to hear a criminal case, and the place whose standards shall be applied in evaluating whether the constitutionally mandated elements of Miller exist to justify a conviction, was the intended destination in the case of mailed material such as videotapes and brochures, and Congress, in the laws governing the mailing of obscene materials, aspired to fix appropriate venue at any place through which the mail traveled. In United States v. Thomas, 1996 FED App. 0032P (6th Cir.), 74 F.3d 701, cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 74. (1996), a case I regard as extreme, and of questionable authority in view of more recent statements from the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit fixed venue in Memphis not only for videotapes mailed to Memphis but for .gif images downloaded in Memphis from a California BBS, without knowledge of the BBS operator that the files were being downloaded in that venue, and the distant and remote defendants were prosecuted and convicted of obscenity under the community standards of Memphis. The jury cannot be expected to apply the community standards of a place whose values are foreign to it, and accordingly, the rule has been that, in criminal obscenity prosecutions, federal courts apply the community standards of the federal district in which they sit - usually several counties of a state, or in less populous states that have only one district, that state - and state courts apply the community standards of the entire state in which they sit, unless the state legislature has, by law, defined the "community" to be a different area, a county for example. However, there seems to be no particular requirement in the law that the exact nature geographical extent of the community be defined for the jury in obscenity prosecutions. See generally Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974). On April 16, 2002, in Ashhahahahaha v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court gave us at least a glint of a hint of the things to come in regard to community values. It appears that only three members of the Court, Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justices Thomas and Scalia, would permit the application of the standards of local geographical communities so that a webmaster could be convicted under those standards anywhere in the country that his site is viewed. The remaining six justices appear to be gravitating in the direction of a national community standard for evaluating Internet obscenity, though it seems barely possible that juries may permissibly go uninstructed by the judge as to the boundaries of the community whose standards they are to apply. It appears almost certain that the Court will not permit the standards of any community through which the signal is transmitted to control. This case can be confusing for anyone to read because there is no single written opinion that is joined by a majority of the members of the Supreme Court; I have prepared a tabular breakdown of the position of each of the justices, as expressed in the various opinions and concurrences and the dissent, in a table found at www.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/focus.htm. Inasmuch as the application of a community's standards are part of the elements of the offense of obscenity, this confusion also adds to the webmaster's uncertainty. __________________ The guys at CJ Bucks will do absolutely anything to get your business. You owe it to yourself to at least ask! Free Hosting, Content, etc. CJ Bucks has it all. Sign up! I'll show you my tits now you show me your traffic.

06-16-2004, 08:47 PM	#8
mary34d Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Northern Cuba Posts: 3,358	No matter how the issue of community standards is ultimately resolved, the development of the Internet is a fundamental change in the ways in which that erotic materials were distributed when Miller and Paris Adult Books were decided, mainly then by mail order and in stores. My view is that the changing media and different circumstances have only intensified the merit of the dissenters's arguments as to unconstitutional vagueness in obscenity law and lessened whatever wisdom was contained in the majority opinions in those cases. My realistic sense, however, reminds me to be cautious of the generally conservative nature of the present Court's majority. Some Practical Observations And though neither I nor anyone else can tell you with precision what is and what is not criminally punishable adult-content obscenity, nor yet even with precision whose laws will apply or can apply to any downloaded material, there are some fundamental concepts, simple principles, that will go far to decrease a webmaster's chances of winding up in Jail. Remember, it is not a videotape or an image or a book or a website that goes on trial for obscenity, it is a person. And it is a person who gets punished, in a punishment that almost always works hardships on spouses, children and other family members. In my remarks at Internext in January, 2002 (and in my article summarizing those remarks, The Seven Circles of Internet Content Hell, found on www.xxxlaw.net) I explained my basic principle of risk avoidance in adult content: The closer erotic content material resembles the broad American understanding of what men and women who like each other do for and with one another when they are alone to please one another, or when they are alone, the safer the material is from the perspective of obscenity law. The further material diverges from this societal icon, the riskier it becomes. I derive this observation from a principle underlying the decision in Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985): Nothing is obscene which is not prurient, and healthy lust is not prurient. The depiction of practices that are outside this icon of what Americans expect goes on in healthy but frankly sexual situations is more likely to appear prurient, that is shameful or morbid, and it becomes more dangerous than depictions of practices within the icon. Works that focus on conduct that is degrading or insulting to one or another of the subjects of the work, images that convey abuse, hopelessness, despair, and victimization, are matters that will be identified as such by a prosecutor in support of his argument that they appeal to an unhealthy and prurient interest in sex. This is not to say that content focused on bondage, domination, and sado-masochism cannot be successfully defended on prurience, but the defense must necessarily overcome a popular conception that these practices are aberrant and unhealthy. That will challenge the defense in proportion to the extremity of the images. Depictions of painful, restrained, and forced sexual activity and of the reduction of human beings to objectification as things to be used, abused and exploited, together with bestiality, would all be among the most difficult images to defend. As the prurient nature and orientation of a site's explicit and graphic content increases, it becomes essential that the online work exhibit serious value as art, literature, or science. For, if its contents are both explicit and extreme enough, both patently offensive and prurient, taken as a whole, and in light of contemporary community standards, all that separates it from criminal obscenity, is that social value. Keep in mind that there are no magic bullets, no charmed magical robes, that will insulate you from liability. The inclusion of text stories of little or no value, or of sexual health articles, or of guides to unusual sexual practices of the far east related to yoga, or aspiring to teach techniques of penile growth, if not integrated closely into and connected with your imagery, if not formed by your creative process into a whole that has real value, invite the appearance and suggestion of content included only as a pretext to justify the graphic images. Obvious and unconnected pretextual content is unlikely to help in an obscenity defense. Whether the website itself will be the "whole" work to be evaluated for value, or whether, like a magazine, its parts will be evaluated separately, may be a factor you can control as you decide how much integration the various parts of you site will have. Think creatively, with defense of your site as a whole work in mind, as you design it and write it. I believe that the use of offshore servers and business entities are factors far more likely to invite the attention of agencies which are charged with the enforcement of the law, and far more likely to be damning proof of knowingly criminal intent, than they are likely to protect you. There should come a point of self-restraint when the risks of criminal prosecution for violating this unposted speed limit become apparent and palpable in a reasonable mind. It is hard, though, for any webmaster to keep the necessary perspective with objectivity, and harder still for the actual content provider and designer to maintain perspective and objectivity over the own work, and this alone is an important reason for independent content review by a lawyer practicing in the area of adult content. A content lawyer is not a censor and he or she cannot and will not tell you what you can and cannot do. A skilled content lawyer can, however, with independence, objectivity, and experience that you will find hard to locate elsewhere, candidly advise you just how risky the site appears. A good content lawyer will also make suggestions toward literary or artistic development that will both enhance the actual social value and appeal of your site and provide some defense ammunition in case of a criminal prosecution for obscenity. Joe Obenberger is a Chicago Loop lawyer concentrating in the law of free expression and liberty under the United States Constitution, and his firm has represented many owners, employees, and customers of adult-oriented businesses, both online and in the real world. He represents and advises websites in many regions of the United States and in Canada. He can be reached in the office at 312 558-6420 or paged in any emergency at 312 250-4118. His e-mail address is [email protected]. His website URL on the World Wide Web is www.xxxlaw.net. __________________ The guys at CJ Bucks will do absolutely anything to get your business. You owe it to yourself to at least ask! Free Hosting, Content, etc. CJ Bucks has it all. Sign up! I'll show you my tits now you show me your traffic.

06-16-2004, 08:48 PM	#9
Joesho want to get in shape Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: on the lake Posts: 12,329	do you know who did the fisting shot? __________________ Got any domains to sell? I proudly host all my stuff at www.rackco.com

06-16-2004, 09:22 PM	#14
mary34d Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Northern Cuba Posts: 3,358	sign me up joesho __________________ The guys at CJ Bucks will do absolutely anything to get your business. You owe it to yourself to at least ask! Free Hosting, Content, etc. CJ Bucks has it all. Sign up! I'll show you my tits now you show me your traffic.

06-16-2004, 09:51 PM	#15
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	joe, no larger images for us to click on 4204l? i think wm's would DEFINITELY remember it if they could rub one out to the site =) __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor