So if I sodomize my doggie

Is that Federal?

Or does it depend what state we are in?

Naaa, I disagree. Fetish, gay, lesbian, hardcore, amateur gangbangs are not even close to being obscene. Do you see any state prosecutions going on for any of them? The only thing even close was the Tampa Tushy Fest, and the LA County DA backed off quick on that one and the results are so weak that fisting is no big deal either.

At least your response is smart and right on point. Its the local jury you have to worry about.


No big deal. Its an old topic, thats for sure, but it ain't going away. Its no sweat off my back if people want to be blase about it. Its just another thread on this board.

state

PICS?????

You dont get it Lawpal, but thats ok...i still love you

I do have a legal question of an amusing nature. Locally, there have been busts of dancers for going a bit over the legal line in their acts. The evidence presented was covert video. What has happened is that people have inquired of the prosecutors for copies of the "evidence," which at that time became a matter of public record and was available through something like "freedom of information." Would that also apply to bestiality, fisting, and CP, do you think? And could the prosecutor then be charged in some other jurisdiction for distributing obscene material?

Thanks
Lots of people think I don't get it, but they still pay me.

:321GFY

:Graucho

Cool, I want to be a lawyer now! :thumbsup

I highly doubt it would appy to bestiality, fisting, or child porn, but there is a famous case here in Florida where a sheriff and his wife were busted. What happed, if I recall correctly, was that the decided that she would work as a prostitute, and that they would film her covertly having sex with these guys. Well, it turned out that some of the guys ended up actually incluing the mayor, and various local politicians. She was convicted on the prostitution charge, but the tapes became public records, and copies can actually be purchased from the court. I looked for about 1/2 an hour online and could not find the story. It happened about 15 years ago, but the tape can still be purchased as a public record.

Go for it, we always need more.

There is a huge difference between what average joe citizens find personally obscene and what the legal system determines to be obscene. Round up 100 random people and chances are if you show them an average straight porn site the word "obscene" will come up.

What is USUALLY classed as obscenity in N America is CP of course, fisting (in many states, not sure about Canada), and extreme sex coupled with graphic violence.

And yes, bestiality is illegal in Canada, so it would also be classed as obscene. The point I wanted to make is that anyone can find just about any type of adult content to be personally obscene, but that idiot's opinion doesn't automatically make that content illegal as per the local definition of obscenity. And I for one am extremely greatful about that. Censorship sucks and everyone knows it!

But, as lawpal will probably affirm (if not, I stand corrected), in the smaller country below Canada, it is less a matter of law than of the opinions of people in the local jurisdiction. In the US, "community standard" is king, and the community used by the courts continues, incorrectly if you ask me, to be defined geographically instead of electronically or in terms of interests.

In Canada as well, when the leglality of the material in question is ambiguous, it is measured against the community standard of tolerance, and that standard of tolerance although <i>should</i> be country-wide, it is more often quite local.

But that's the exact point I was trying to make. I may have said it badly, but what I was trying to illustrate is that just because one or even a few people *thinK* something is obscene, doesn't make it so. It is the community standard of tolerance that is the basis for deciding legality, especially pertaining to the world-wide web. That tolerance is usually far above what many inidividuals would have if given the opportunity to play censorship god.

In the US, whether something is obscene is not a factual matter, but one based on opinion. Unfortunately, once the local opinion is expressed as a verdict, the punishment is a fact even if the crime is a matter of opinion.

yes, but these judgments are also highly subject to comparable precedents set, just like in Canada. We have the R v Sharpe decision and the R v Butler decision. The U.S. has many such precedents as well, and the courts have to abide by them, they are the basis of law. No single small group of people can deem something obscene and make it stick unless the law backs them up.

Also, a webmaster may be charged with obscenity, but if his sites are hosted in another country there is really fuck all that anyone locally can do to have his or her site shut down, unless the country it is hosted in also deems it obscene. Otherwise it's "tough shit" to the holier-than-thou types.

i think humans (especially males) are not far removed from animals when it concerns sexuality. just the same. when it comes to "beasty", i think if you have to tie the animal up or force them in any way, it's cruelty.

i'm getting a little sick of that whole "look at it, because it's different" crap. after all we're not lil boys daring each other to see who can endure "faces of death" and other stoopid macho rites of passage.

grow the fuck up. i say to beasty types.

Tit, I've said it before, and I agree with you. I'm not sure about the whole "boys" thing, because beasty content companies, webmasters and models come in all shapes and sizes..... and from both genders.

But the common rationalization is "Hey, the animal is enjoying itself getting fucked/sucked or doing the fucking, so what's the harm?".... My personal opinion is that any being that can't make a concious rational decision to participate in adult activity should be out of bounds, to use them is wrong. No if's, and's or but's about it. It is wrong. It applies to children, and it should apply to animals too. Thankfully, in Canada it is illegal.

There's been so much said and I can't be bothered rehashing old hit - but to put it into perspective:
There's been so much debate over whether beastiality is illegal or not - but in realtion to the topic in hand it actually has nothing to do with US laws - Those Pics are shot in the Netherlands and Brazil - so i think the r REAL questions is not where beastiality is illegal but where HOSTING of beastiality is illegal.
Some of the Big name billing co's still process payment for it - so obviously it isn't all THAT much of an issue.
I think ppl should loo into the facts a bit more closely b4 jumping to conclcuions based on their own personal preferences.


personally i think our firend Mr Lawpal is actually interested in this niche and id using this thread as a way of sussing out how it he can get into it
:Graucho LMAO

<a href="http://www.dirtydollar.com"><img src="http://www.sexcontents.com/kitty/ddsmall.gif"></a>
<a href="http://www.sexcontents.com"><img src="http://www.sexcontents.com/kitty/sexcontentsnew.gif"></a>

Thanks, but no. I prefer this .


:321GFY

If you are a US citizen and while out of the country you break a US law... you are stillllll in trouble so offshore or not, oops, you win a cell if convicted.

Offshore servers do NOT protect you... afterall the sites didn't build themselves did they? The person that commited the 'crime' is just that. :1orglaugh

I see some arguments here that would translate to the gun did it yer honor, don't charge ME! Host the sites on the moon and still carry OUR passport and you can be charged.


Anyone know whatever become of that little Okie city or whatever sueing the texas cam site?!?! THAT one could have or might set some serious precedence.


Down with beasty. CD is right. No legal conscientiousness <yeah I know the spelling is wrong lol> should dictate.

Hmmmmm, knew I would mispell that dern C word! :Graucho

If he's convicted, the fact that his site is still running on some Caribbean island or in the Soviet Union or somewhere in Africa may be of little solace as he wastes away in jail. In fact, it's likely to put him off adult webmastering entirely.

Uh, no. If you link to it or present it and/or profit from it, it could become a legal issue for you. Local community standards, remember? If you run a bestiality site hosted in some foreign country, for example, do you seriously think a prosecutor in a county in Louisiana where someone finds his daughter looking at a man blowing a pig is going to say, "No, can't do anything about that!" if he discovers that someone involved with the site lives in the US? I don't think so.

"Your honor, even though I'm a US citizen, you can't charge me with breaking that window: I threw it from across the border in Canada." Hahahahahaha.

If you want to escape US law, give up your citizenship. It's as easy as that.

Well, at least you know how to spell bestiality (not "beastiality" as I'm seeing it more often than not).

He must be lying-his lips are moving.

Hey, as long as it looks like the dog is having fun, who cares :Graucho

Why don't you mind your own fucking business, shit sniffers
If you don't like it don't watch

Haha.. yeah.. all you guys who think lawyers are supposed to know what is legal and what is not.. think again. Only a jury can determine if something is legal. A lawyer merely argues one viewpoint. An ethical lawyer only argues the viewpoint he supports.

The Man Speaks.

All I would say to you, stile, is that I, for one, hope you DO NOT get into trouble for posting that. That would be a sad day. Unless you posted it without asking, which I doubt, what did your lawyer say to you about it? I can only imagine him telling you, "whatever you do, stay away from those conservative southern states. "

:Graucho

[If I recall correctly, that video came from eat the rich, a site you profiled several months back.]

Judges, not juries or attorneys, determine what is legal. To be exact it is ultimately the nine judges of the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, yes.

Ultimately, you're correct, unless someone decides not to appeal somewhere along the way. Prosecutors will often take a jury's verdict as "the people have spoken" and leave it at that. Appeals are normally based on technicalities, not "we disagree with the jury, Judge, and we think you should tell them they were wrong."