Obscenity & The Government

[madthumbs]

I was just sitting here playing Doom III when it randomly crashed on me .. I had gotten pretty far along and hadn't hit an auto save point or saved it manually, so I was fairly pissed off.

Anyhow, I sat here for a few minutes and stared at my screen and just began to think about obscenity and what it means, and what it ultimately comes from.

The question I asked myself is, is it just me, or is something deemed obscene only by some sort of moral and/or religious view? I mean, in a world with no religion, would there even be such a thing as obscenity to begin with?

Many of our laws stem from religion, no doubt. Like killing someone etc .. but that's a big time infringement on that persons rights .. to say the least.

But something being obscene in the eyes of a DA or Jury/Community or what the fuck ever ... How would they decide that?

Some people find all porn obscene, while others could give a fuck less and nothing would be obscene to them.

Anyhow that shit is all pointless.

What I'm trying to figure out, is if obscenity stems from a religious/moral view of 'something', and if so, how it's even possible for a governement to get off charging people with a violation of a religious/moral belief?

I believe that an individuals opinion on whether or not something is obscene is DIRECTLY related to their level of religious influence, and their morals. The varying levels of opinion on obscenity couldn't stem from hardly anything else could they?

[madthumbs]

Oh .. and I said all that to question if an obscenity prosecution is not a direct violation of the seperation of church & state ;-)

[WiredGuy]

Originally posted by madthumbs
But something being obscene in the eyes of a DA or Jury/Community or what the fuck ever ... How would they decide that?

All has to do with Community Standards and the Miller Test when it comes to convictions on obsenity. But I'm not a lawyer, I'm sure a few content production experts can provide a better opinion than mine.

Edit: For your reference if you're not familiar with the miller test: http://www.nationallawcenter.org/Miller%20Test.htm

WG

[MrIzzz]

"in god we trust"

"one nation under god"

and theres more. until they remove that from anything government related, religion will continue to play a major role in government and politics.

[madthumbs]

Yea, I know that basically ANY porn can be prosecuted for being obscene, and in the end, its 100% up to jury (community standards) as to whether or not that is actually obscene ...

I didn't elaborate enough on my question of 'how do they decide that?'. What I was getting at is, how do they decide what's obscene or not ..

Well, if it were a bunch of old people, they'd say it was obscene cause they are old and shit is way different now than 30 years ago.

If it were a bunch of 20-30 year olds, it has a high probability of not being obscene since we watch MTV constantly etc.

What it all boils down to, is obscenity is a matter of opinion that is tied directly to a persons morals & religion.

And morals & religion shouldn't have shit to do with whether or not something is legal.

[Giorgio_Xo]

All hail the Grand Republic of Gilead. The day has come for all to bow to the Army of God.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by madthumbs
Yea, I know that basically ANY porn can be prosecuted for being obscene, and in the end, its 100% up to jury (community standards) as to whether or not that is actually obscene ...

I didn't elaborate enough on my question of 'how do they decide that?'. What I was getting at is, how do they decide what's obscene or not ..

Well, if it were a bunch of old people, they'd say it was obscene cause they are old and shit is way different now than 30 years ago.

If it were a bunch of 20-30 year olds, it has a high probability of not being obscene since we watch MTV constantly etc.

What it all boils down to, is obscenity is a matter of opinion that is tied directly to a persons morals & religion.

And morals & religion shouldn't have shit to do with whether or not something is legal.

Bernstein made the case at the San Diego show that the Extreme Associates case was very important to our industry because it is the first time that specific kinds of content will be judged, e.g. fisting, rough sex, pissing, etc. If these are ruled obscene then we will know where the true bar is set. On the other hand if Free Speech prevails then there is truly no obscenity.

In my opinion, there can be no obscenity. Everyone has a right to their own tastes as long as there is no non-censentual bodily harm.

[WiredGuy]

Originally posted by madthumbs
Yea, I know that basically ANY porn can be prosecuted for being obscene, and in the end, its 100% up to jury (community standards) as to whether or not that is actually obscene ...

I didn't elaborate enough on my question of 'how do they decide that?'. What I was getting at is, how do they decide what's obscene or not ..

Well, if it were a bunch of old people, they'd say it was obscene cause they are old and shit is way different now than 30 years ago.

If it were a bunch of 20-30 year olds, it has a high probability of not being obscene since we watch MTV constantly etc.

What it all boils down to, is obscenity is a matter of opinion that is tied directly to a persons morals & religion.

And morals & religion shouldn't have shit to do with whether or not something is legal.

I think you answered your own question. It's the jury that will determine the community standard and obsenity in the end. What's deemed obsene in one state could be perfectly fine in another, it all depends on the community.

WG

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by WiredGuy
All has to do with Community Standards and the Miller Test when it comes to convictions on obsenity. But I'm not a lawyer, I'm sure a few content production experts can provide a better opinion than mine.

Edit: For your reference if you're not familiar with the miller test: http://www.nationallawcenter.org/Miller%20Test.htm

WG

That's right. Community standard of tolerance.... and that standard changes sometimes drastically from state to state, country to country.

Generally though, in Canada & the US, the ommunity standard of tolerance has changed quite significantly over the past 2 decades. Back in the mid-to-late 80's the cops were raiding Adult's Only Video locations here in Winnipeg for renting out nothing more than what we now know today as mainstream porn.

The internet itself has gone a long way to push the limits of what is and isn't acceptable. We have more freedom of expression online than ever before, but we could also lose a lot of that freedom in a heartbeat if certain members of the moral majority have their way.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by WiredGuy
I think you answered your own question. It's the jury that will determine the community standard and obsenity in the end. What's deemed obsene in one state could be perfectly fine in another, it all depends on the community.

WG

A Canadian court recently judged in the Sweet case that local standards no longer apply because of the democratic effect of the internet, i.e. there is only one community.

[Doctor Dre]

One thing for sure is that the standard for obsenity is going down from generations to generations ... with the new medias and internet, it's really brain washing ...

[WiredGuy]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
A Canadian court recently judged in the Sweet case that local standards no longer apply because of the democratic effect of the internet, i.e. there is only one community.

I think Mike was referring more towards US law however.
WG

[sexeducation]

This issue is - "what community?"

GFY - is a community?

What is posted here would be obscene to many.

The laws have not caught up to the information age.

It would be obscene to post "aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids" on the homepage of WhiteHouse.com or Queen.com or in fact SexEducation.com.

However, having been fairly warned, and done "due dilegence" with regards to minors, all three could post such somewhere in their website. imo

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
A Canadian court recently judged in the Sweet case that local standards no longer apply because of the democratic effect of the internet, i.e. there is only one community.

The internet is NOT one community but many millions of communities.

It would be obscene to post beastiality in a teen chat room but not obscene to post and discuss it on a Doctors board discussing the perversion.

[madthumbs]

My point is just that no community or group or ANY collection of people should be able to judge for another what is obscene or not.

I could go around my street to 15 different houses and get 15 totally different opinions on some random content .. and this is all in a 100 yard area .. so by god, this is a community .. and even the fuckers who are my direct neighbors should not be allowed to tell me what gets my dick hard.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by madthumbs
My point is just that no community or group or ANY collection of people should be able to judge for another what is obscene or not.

I could go around my street to 15 different houses and get 15 totally different opinions on some random content .. and this is all in a 100 yard area .. so by god, this is a community .. and even the fuckers who are my direct neighbors should not be allowed to tell me what gets my dick hard.

However, there would be some stuff that the VAST majority agree on in that community.

cp, beastiality, etc ...

There is one thing that no matter what adult you ask - connected or not connected - the highest majority agree that "cum shots and hardons" (aroused genitals and reproductive fluids) should NOT be posted directly on ANY HOMEPAGE ANYWHERE - as it is obscene.

I did not choose to learn that - but I did.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
This issue is - "what community?"

GFY - is a community?

What is posted here would be obscene to many.

The laws have not caught up to the information age.

It would be obscene to post "aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids" on the homepage of WhiteHouse.com or Queen.com or in fact SexEducation.com.

However, having been fairly warned, and done "due dilegence" with regards to minors, all three could post such somewhere in their website. imo

URLs are only words. Who cares what they say. People have a right to use what ever words in their vocabulary to express themselves.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by sexeducation
This issue is - "what community?"

GFY - is a community?

What is posted here would be obscene to many.

The laws have not caught up to the information age.

It would be obscene to post "aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids" on the homepage of WhiteHouse.com or Queen.com or in fact SexEducation.com.

However, having been fairly warned, and done "due dilegence" with regards to minors, all three could post such somewhere in their website. imo

Fuck off, troll.. You are a useless piece of shit who isn't in the industry.. Mike is a top guy in his niche. You have no right saying shit all in his thread.. Kindly fuck off and die.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
The internet is NOT one community but many millions of communities.

It would be obscene to post beastiality in a teen chat room but not obscene to post and discuss it on a Doctors board discussing the perversion.

I invite you to read the decision. You are adding variables that aren't applicable. We are speaking of adults. Children don't have immediate rights under the law. Use your brain a bit. Community is defined as immediate accessibility to the material.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by LadyMischief
Fuck off, troll.. You are a useless piece of shit who isn't in the industry.. Mike is a top guy in his niche. You have no right saying shit all in his thread.. Kindly fuck off and die.

That's because YOU did do what I am saying.
For money - right?

You broke community standards and you know it - right?
Bitch

[martyVP]

Originally posted by madthumbs
I was just sitting here playing Doom III when it randomly crashed on me .. I had gotten pretty far along and hadn't hit an auto save point or saved it manually, so I was fairly pissed off.

Anyhow, I sat here for a few minutes and stared at my screen and just began to think about obscenity and what it means, and what it ultimately comes from.

The question I asked myself is, is it just me, or is something deemed obscene only by some sort of moral and/or religious view? I mean, in a world with no religion, would there even be such a thing as obscenity to begin with?

Many of our laws stem from religion, no doubt. Like killing someone etc .. but that's a big time infringement on that persons rights .. to say the least.

But something being obscene in the eyes of a DA or Jury/Community or what the fuck ever ... How would they decide that?

Some people find all porn obscene, while others could give a fuck less and nothing would be obscene to them.

Anyhow that shit is all pointless.

What I'm trying to figure out, is if obscenity stems from a religious/moral view of 'something', and if so, how it's even possible for a governement to get off charging people with a violation of a religious/moral belief?

I believe that an individuals opinion on whether or not something is obscene is DIRECTLY related to their level of religious influence, and their morals. The varying levels of opinion on obscenity couldn't stem from hardly anything else could they?

I am not sure its tied to religion,its more to regulate the world before it gets worse than it is.

Look,I have been in porn since 94 and i still believe there are some places where you must draw the line.

as to how they judge it,it comes down to who is on the jury stand and how they feel about the content or product being in thier community.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I invite you to read the decision. You are adding variables that aren't applicable. We are speaking of adults. Children don't have immediate rights under the law. Use your brain a bit. Community is defined as immediate accessibility to the material.

Children have a right to reasonable access to the informaton age.
It is unreasonable to expect that you will get porn when you visited WhiteHouse.com and Queen.com.
And the entire internet community which includes many of the smaller communities agrees with that statement.

How could you NOT expect children to go to WhiteHouse.com?

Like I said - this issue is the definition of a "community" and it is no longer geographically based.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
Children have a right to reasonable access to the informaton age.
It is unreasonable to expect that you will get porn when you visited WhiteHouse.com and Queen.com.
And the entire internet community which includes many of the smaller communities agrees with that statement.

How could you NOT expect children to go to WhiteHouse.com?

Like I said - this issue is the definition of a "community" and it is no longer geographically based.

It's just a URL. Again you are adding variables that don't apply. Who cares what is 'reasonable'? What if you owned a strip club named White House. Shouldn't you have the right to use that domain name? Don't strip clubs offer naked women as a visual? Words are just words.

[AkiraSS]

cliff notes?

[pornguy]

What I'm trying to figure out, is if obscenity stems from a religious/moral view of 'something', and if so, how it's even possible for a governement to get off charging people with a violation of a religious/moral belief?

Keeping this incase they come after me.

That is one hell of an argument.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by sexeducation
That's because YOU did do what I am saying.
For money - right?

You broke community standards and you know it - right?
Bitch

Haha you're a fucking moron.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation

And the entire internet community which includes many of the smaller communities agrees with that statement.

This line of logic would also have you ban homosexuality since the vast majprity of people see it as offensive.

You should care more about how you educate your own child and worry less about how other people live their lives.

Personally, I would want to force people to take an IQ test whereby stupid idiots like you would be put to death for such one demensional thinking. Alas... I must be consistant with my beliefs and principles that everyone has equal access under the law.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
It's just a URL. Again you are adding variables that don't apply. Who cares what is 'reasonable'? What if you owned a strip club named White House. Shouldn't you have the right to use that domain name? Don't strip clubs offer naked women as a visual? Words are just words.

I've been through this MILLIONS of times in order to appease what everybody thinks their version of what SexEducation.com should be.

Here is the poll that asks what content rating should SexEducation.com rebuild as;

Child Safe 8.15% (59)
Teen Safe 23.34% (169)
Mature 11.33% (82)
Adult 16.16% (117)
Restricted Adult 4.28% (31)
Multiple rated areas - but NOT adult or restricted 1.38% (10)
Multiple rated areas - all ratings. 3.31% (24)
It should not be rated - just explore the truth. 29.97% (217)
No rating and NO graphics or video. 2.07% (15)


59 people voted "CHILD SAFE" ...WTF ?????
What sexual website is child safe????
NONE

If you owned a strip club called "WHITE HOUSE" you would not be able to post sexually explicit pictures in the windows of that geographic community just like you can not post the same in a cyber community where obvisiously children come by.

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
I've been through this MILLIONS of times in order to appease what everybody thinks their version of what SexEducation.com should be.

Here is the poll that asks what content rating should SexEducation.com rebuild as;

Child Safe 8.15% (59)
Teen Safe 23.34% (169)
Mature 11.33% (82)
Adult 16.16% (117)
Restricted Adult 4.28% (31)
Multiple rated areas - but NOT adult or restricted 1.38% (10)
Multiple rated areas - all ratings. 3.31% (24)
It should not be rated - just explore the truth. 29.97% (217)
No rating and NO graphics or video. 2.07% (15)


59 people voted "CHILD SAFE" ...WTF ?????
What sexual website is child safe????
NONE

If you owned a strip club called "WHITE HOUSE" you would not be able to post sexually explicit pictures in the windows of that geographic community just like you can not post the same in a cyber community where obvisiously children come by.

I don't give a shit what your web site should be. All I know is that my sites make money.

Naked images are available anywhere on Earth - from the Vatican to Michelangelo's David to the temples of India. It's just sex. Relax.

You must have grown up a Mennonite. You are completely a repressed psychological stereotype.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
[B]This line of logic would also have you ban homosexuality since the vast majprity of people see it as offensive.

That is wrong - it's tolerated.
"Just don't shove it in my face" is the majority opinion.

You should care more about how you educate your own child and worry less about how other people live their lives.

I am the Webmaster of SexEducation.com.
It is my job to promote sexual truth.

Personally, I would want to force people to take an IQ test whereby stupid idiots like you would be put to death for such one demensional thinking. Alas... I must be consistant with my beliefs and principles that everyone has equal access under the law.

What planet are you on?

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I don't give a shit what your web site should be. All I know is that my sites make money.

Naked images are available anywhere on Earth - from the Vatican to Michelangelo's David to the temples of India. It's just sex. Relax.

You must have grown up a Mennonite. You are completely a repressed psychological stereotype.

You can justify your behaivor anyway you want - FOR MONEY.
I choose respect and community morals.

The money will come.
The key to the information age - is information.

I have it - I win.

Vaginal orgasm - is a lie!

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by LadyMischief
Haha you're a fucking moron.

Haha ... those who are reading this know you didn't answer the question.

Have you posted "aroused genitals or reproductive fluids" on your homepage?

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by sexeducation
Haha ... those who are reading this know you didn't answer the question.

Have you posted "aroused genitals or reproductive fluids" on your homepage?

Actually, that's an unfair question.
I don't care if you have in the past - lord knows - I've made mistakes too - and I too have grown with the online adult industry.

Would you now post aroused genitals or reproductive fluids on your homepage?

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
You can justify your behaivor anyway you want - FOR MONEY.
I choose respect and community morals.

The money will come.
The key to the information age - is information.

I have it - I win.

Vaginal orgasm - is a lie!

You want to legislate morality? And whose morals? The only morals that truly matter are my own. You seek concensus where there is none. You seek mob rule. You seek to impose when all one has to do is not look, not read, not listen. Why should I have to change because people can't take care of themselves? You are dying to tell me what to do, what to think, what to read, whom I should worship, and what to listen.

[exposed]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
All hail the Grand Republic of Gilead. The day has come for all to bow to the Army of God.

[CDSmith]

Ahh SexPedo. The other cancer on this board that is allowed to exist. This is him making another otherwise intelligent thread all about him and his pedo nonsense.

Notice even when he nearly hits the mark with an almost valid point it is just that..... almost but not quit. The guy's thought processes are dimented at best.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
You want to legislate morality? And whose morals? The only morals that truly matter are my own.

However - I think you agree that killing is wrong?
So there is a standard to all morals.
Something we all agree on as a "civilized" population.

You seek concensus where there is none.

I don't seek anything - I am telling you what I have learned.
My job is not to impose my own agenda but to report what the consensus seems to be.

You can ask anyone - and well over 90% will say - yes I agree that homepages should not have aroused genitals or reproductive fluids.

Now - I've been around this industry enough to know how much money is lost by "first impressions" by those that use free speech to say it should be allowed.

But the fact is - most don't agree with it.

You seek mob rule. You seek to impose when all one has to do is not look, not read, not listen. Why should I have to change because people can't take care of themselves? You are dying to tell me what to do, what to think, what to read, whom I should worship, and what to listen.

NO - I reporting on what I have learned.
And being somewhat proactive on the disemmination of that information in a world that currently lives in a sexual dark ages.

[Nickless]

Well i have the answer:


F5: Quicksave
F9: Quickload

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Nickless
Well i have the answer:


F5: Quicksave
F9: Quickload

Obvisously, you didn't read JuicyLinks thread on the difference between "sig whoring" and "power posters".

Which do you now think this board sees you as?

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
However - I think you agree that killing is wrong?
So there is a standard to all morals.
Something we all agree on as a "civilized" population.



I don't seek anything - I am telling you what I have learned.
My job is not to impose my own agenda but to report what the consensus seems to be.

You can ask anyone - and well over 90% will say - yes I agree that homepages should not have aroused genitals or reproductive fluids.

Now - I've been around this industry enough to know how much money is lost by "first impressions" by those that use free speech to say it should be allowed.

But the fact is - most don't agree with it.



NO - I reporting on what I have learned.
And being somewhat proactive on the disemmination of that information in a world that currently lives in a sexual dark ages.

Killing has nothing to do with morality. I can read you endless treatises on justifiable homocide. Murder is banned because it creates chaos within the politcal structure but state sanctioned killing is perfectly acceptable. Morality is not legislated. Laws govern the efficient operation of the society.

The famous historian Bloch said it best. "It is for only God to judge."

[madthumbs]

He was referring to me losing my progress in Doom III :-/

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Killing has nothing to do with morality. I can read you endless treatises on justifiable homocide. Murder is banned because it creates chaos within the politcal structure but state sanctioned killing is perfectly acceptable. Morality is not legislated. Laws govern the efficient operation of the society.

The famous historian Bloch said it best. "It is for only God to judge."

If you don't think it is immoral to kill then why shouldn't you?

Morality by definition is a democratic acceptable way of behaviour?

I like this thread - there are some VERY tough questions in here.

[CET]

You ought to see the episode of Bullshit about profanity.

I really don't understand why someone should be offended by profanity. If you say "ah shoot", it means the same thing as "ah shit". So what's the difference?

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by CET
You ought to see the episode of Bullshit about profanity.

I really don't understand why someone should be offended by profanity. If you say "ah shoot", it means the same thing as "ah shit". So what's the difference?

Santa Vaca!

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
If you don't think it is immoral to kill then why shouldn't you?

Morality by definition is a democratic acceptable way of behaviour?

I like this thread - there are some VERY tough questions in here.

Wrong. Democracy and concensus has nothing to do with a code of conduct. It can be imposed.

Morals by definition is the judgment of goodness - repeat judgment. I am the only one to judge myself. Who are you to impose your morals on me? You have no place to judge my actions since you only have yourself to base an opinion.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Wrong. Democracy and concensus has nothing to do with a code of conduct. It can be imposed.

Morals by definition is the judgment of goodness - repeat judgment. I am the only one to judge myself. Who are you to impose your morals on me? You have no place to judge my actions since you only have yourself to base an opinion.

Your mixed up I think ...
probably justifying things that you have done in the past and judging yourself ...

Do you think it is immoral to kill?

[Giorgio_Xo]

Originally posted by sexeducation
Your mixed up I think ...
probably justifying things that you have done in the past and judging yourself ...

Do you think it is immoral to kill?

I am very clear in thought nor have I done anything in the past that would cause confusion. Do I believe killing is immoral? I make no judgment without knowing the circumstances.

[SleazyDream]

there is a correlation between a countries intelligence and it's acceptance of religion. the more religious a country is the less educated the population is - with one execption - Isreal.

And jews love porn so they're cool.

[madthumbs]

ultimately you are judging whether someone has the right to live.

you are IMPOSING death upon someone ..

how do you compare that, even in regards to morals, to someone willingly typing in www.something.com and seeing whatever the fuck you were talking about?