SEObot

Ok I am trying to find out about Texas laws and the net obscene material is still not allowed on the Net in Texas?

BrainDead

I suggest you do a google search

SEObot

This is what I came up with!


Title 9, Chapter 43, Subchapter B, Texas Penal Code on Obscenity
(Current through the 1998 supplement - 1997 session of the Texas Legislature)

Section 43.21. Definitions
a. In this subchapter:

1. "Obscene" means material or a performance that:

A. the average person, applying contemporary community standards,would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest insex;

B. depicts or describes:

i. patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality; or

ii. patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital organs; and

C. taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political,and scientific value.

2. "Material" means anything tangible that is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound, or in any other manner, but does not include an actual three dimensional obscene device.

3. "Performance" means a play, motion picture, dance, or other exhibition performed before an audience.

4. "Patently offensive" means so offensive on its face as to affront current community standards of decency.

5. "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same.

6. "Wholesale promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, provide, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, or to offer or agree to do the same for purpose of resale.

7. "Obscene device" means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.

b. If any of the depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct described in this section are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawfully included herein, this declaration shall not invalidate this section as to other patently offensive sexual conduct included herein.

Section 43.22. Obscene Display or Distribution
a. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly displays or distributes an obscene photograph, drawing, or similar visual representation or other obscene material and is reckless about whether a person is present who will be offended or alarmed by the display or distribution.

b. An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Section 43.23. Obscenity
a. A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device.

b. An offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony.

c. A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he:

1. promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device; or

2. produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity.

d. An offense under Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.

e. A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.

f. A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.

g. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose.

------End of File------

If returning to Frames or Extended-browser version, simply close window when finished.

Text users, use left arrow to go back to previous page.

updated 1/2003

baddog

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

best to stay current as laws change at least once a year

SEObot

Then here alittle story about this in texas?


The appellant was convicted of promotion of obscenity. On petition to this court,

the appellant argues that because he did not know that the videotape in question was

obscene, the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. The appellant also argues that the Court of Appeals erroneously upheld the trial court's exclusion of comparable pornographic evidence from the internet. Because the statute requires only knowledge of the material's character and content, and not knowledge of its legal status as obscene, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient. Furthermore, because the defendant failed to show a reasonable degree of community acceptance of the internet images, the trial court did not err in excluding the proffered evidence and testimony. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

Background

On October 9, 1996, Detective Reynerson, an undercover police officer in the Dallas Police Department's Vice Division, entered Star Adult Video Center. After viewing a display of videotape boxes, Reynerson selected the videotape box for "Hardcore Schoolgirls Volume 5" and presented the box to the appellant, who was the sales clerk. The appellant checked the videotape number on the side of the box, retrieved the videotape from the back of the video store, and then sold it to Reynerson. Reynerson later viewed the videotape and arrested the appellant for promotion of obscenity.

At trial, the videotape was played for the jury and the videotape box was admitted into evidence. The front of the box has several sexual statements, and the back of the box has sixteen pictures, eleven of which show sexually explicit scenes. (1) Reynerson testified that he had never purchased a videotape in which the activities pictured on the box were different from the activities depicted in the video, and that he chose this videotape based on the pictures on the box. (2) In Reynerson's opinion, the videotape was obscene.

The appellant testified that the video store had between twenty-five and thirty thousand videotapes on site. The appellant testified that he knew the character of the films sold was sexually explicit and that he had a general understanding of what was on most of the videotapes. Although the appellant admitted he knew that some kind of sex act was depicted on all the videotapes, he testified that he did not know the exact content of this particular videotape.

Raymond Hill, a lobbyist and consultant for various sexually oriented businesses across Texas, testified for the defense concerning pornographic businesses in Texas and the materials sold at such businesses. Hill said that the images depicted on the videotape were not uncommon in the industry, and that the videotape was not obscene. Hill also testified concerning advertising for pornographic businesses in radio, billboard, and newspaper advertisements.

Outside the presence of the jury, the appellant proffered the testimony of Stanley Wilder, an internet web-page designer. Wilder testified that there were 225,000 sexually oriented internet sites and that anybody with a computer and modem could access those sites. He testified that the internet sites were available at the Dallas Public Library, but that he did not know of any efforts by library personnel to censor access to the internet. According to Wilder, many of the sites originated in foreign countries that did not regulate such sites. On a computer, Wilder displayed a slide show with images obtained from sexually oriented internet sites.

The State objected to Wilder's testimony and evidence as irrelevant. The trial court sustained the State's objection and excluded the evidence. The trial court explained that, even if the evidence was relevant, it would be excluded under Rule 403 as a needless presentation of cumulative evidence and as confusing and misleading to the jury.

Before the jury charge was read, the appellant made a bill of exceptions concerning Wilder's later trip to the library. During the appellant's testimony, Wilder had gone to the library. On a library computer, Wilder accessed the internet and viewed and downloaded material from the same internet sites that he had presented during his prior testimony. Wilder would have testified that the library made no effort to censor or prevent anyone from using its computers to find sexually explicit images on the internet. The trial court again excluded the evidence. The jury found the appellant guilty.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Burden v. State, No. 05-97-01464-CR, slip op. at 5 (Tex. App. -- Dallas August 3, 1999) (not designated for publication). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant knew the character and content of the videotape. Id. at 3. The Court of Appeals concluded that the jury could have found that the appellant had knowledge of the videotape's character and content based on the other sexually explicit videos sold at the store, and based on the videotape's box that had pictures showing explicit sexual acts. Id.

The Court of Appeals further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Wilder's testimony and collected images. Id. at 5. It held that evidence of internet pornography was already in the record through the testimony of Reynerson. (3) Id. The Court of Appeals also explained that the appellant's proffered evidence consisted of still pictures, not movies; that most likely the appellant's evidence did not originate in Dallas, but rather Holland or South America; and finally, that Wilder stated that he did not know what efforts, if any, the library had taken to censor access to the internet. Id.

We granted the appellant's petition to determine if the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction, and to determine whether Wilder's testimony and the internet images from the library were properly excluded. (4)

SEObot

Thanks

Manowar

no, its also illegal to be kak_azn and retarded.

so you better start running

SEObot

Dude for real you are fucking annoying.

Manowar

You dont realise most of the board think that about you ?

Webby

SEObot:

That is all very damned dangerous stuff.

It really don't matter what the details of the law are - there are plenty grounds within that to "capture" anyone they want.

Then, once in the system, you are fucked and it costs both time and money defending that shit.

Before.. about 1995, there were a round of obscenity cases. These were severe to say the least. Since that time webmasters don't know how lucky they are. It only takes one image :-)

Solution? There is none, tho I decided to just move to a location where this is not a problem and the laws are more than kind to webmasters.

SEObot

That's just what I needed to hear It's like everythings a crime now days cant do shit or you better have your shit together if you want to make some real money in this business I think I'll just go sell drugs or something I am sick of trying to start business to only find out I will end up in jail if I grow and get big !

goverment

Webby

SEObot:

I didn't mean to depress ya!

That is part of the problem of "civilized" societies/nations - the only laws left to make relate to breathing between the hours of 9 and 12.

On the "growing big" stuff - that don't necessarily apply. Prosecutors like "specimen cases" in some instances and deliberately choose a "small guy", knowing he will be walked over and they will get some precidents before they head for bigger fish.

However, if ya get "too big" - ya just fuck off to some paradise and operate from there and observe their laws, which are absolutely nothing like, eg the laws of the State of Texas.

"Legals" are really part and parcel of the adult biz - tho most webmasters have been very lucky over the last.. almost ten years. If authorities want to cuff ya - they will. It's too easy!

PS.. I've been in this biz for decades and had a share of "legals" - in both instances they were "contrived" and fortunately, I "won" in the end - tho that ain't no achievement - there are no "winners" with that shit.