Slashdot Mirror
Federal Obscenity Rule Nixed In Internet Porn Case
CaptainEbo writes "A court has declared the federal anti-obscenity law unconstitutional in a criminal case against an Internet porn distributor: 'We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials.' The court's decision rested in part on Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Under Lawrence, said the court, 'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
This reminds me of the wonderful essay of Paul Graham, What You Can't Say (which could be easily transformed in What You Can't Watch).
The case was with a California company, but the Feds decided to try the trial here in Pittsburgh. They thought a federal judge in Pittsburgh would be more conservative than a judge in California, but thought wrong.
Here's more information from our local papers:
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
WTAE-TV
Actually, that is rather ironic, I think. Consider the constitutionality of gay marriage (or marriage in general), for example. I've never actually seen anyone make a case for the government getting involved in marriage that didn't involve somebody's morality or offended sensibilities.
I'd say this case could rather be a more general setback for the "moral" religious right that's pushing so hard for changes right now. Personally, that makes me happy since I don't like it when other people try to FORCE me to be "moral" by their standards (I find it aggravating enough when people try to TELL me to be moral, but hey, it's their free speech).
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
it's about fucking time! I'm getting so sick of these self-righteous jackasses that seem to think I have to live my life according to *their* beliefs.
Exactly. I can't wait until the drinking age is lowered to 18, and the handgun ownership age is lowered to the same. And Concealed carry laws get revoked. And it will be great when my tax money stops going into Social Security and welfare and medicare. And it will be GREAT when schools no longer teach my children that sex before marrige is OK, or that homosexuality is even remotely acceptable.
Granted, it's porn...but is it really their--or our--business what people get off with?
It is their business if the majority of the people in this country feel that's the way the laws should read, and the appointed judges don't disagree. It sounds like the majority is slowly moving away from this sort of morality-based thinking, but it is the government's business to do what the people tell it to do, even if that conflicts with your personal beliefs. Remember this country was founded by heavily religous people and most of the population still is, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that in general our laws are very conservative..
I don't tell [insert moralizing group here] that they have to [insert activity that group dislikes]. Many of them like to tell me that I can't [same activity from previous sentence].
Take student prayer for example. A law that says you can't pray is wrong. A law that says you must pray is also wrong. A law that says you can pray if you want to but no government employee in authority over you is allowed to influence that decision one way or another is ok, but redundant.
By wrong I mean unconstitutional and anti-freedom. By redundant I mean that it is already in the constitution, so why write another law?
I agree with everything you said except the motor vehicle deal. You can label drugs as FDA approved or not and let people make choices that affect them, or let people choose doctors to make educated choices about them.
However, labelling cars is not helpful and it is a serious public health risk to have unqualified drivers on the road.
Really? Lets start with welfare, it's there because people deserve a second chance (a moral decision) and people need a helping hand (again a moral decision). Now even if I agree with those sentements, it is easily my choice to decide not to help people out with my money. After all, it's my money, and I'm an adult, I can decide what I want to do with it. Yet, the government takes my money and gives it to poor people. They force me to be charitable, thus forcing a particular beleif system on me. You choose to watch porn, I choose to save my money.
How about the drinking age. A consenting adult who can watch porn and kill, but can't drink.
Gun laws in general. A concenting adult can look at porn but can't own a gun to protect his family? Sounds like a moral decision to me.
No, I'm perfectly serious. Every particular set of laws which forbids something that doesn't violate the rights of another person is a moral decision imposing a set of beleifs upon society. Porn, obcenity, drinking and gun ownership are all variations on the same thing.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
>Virtually all criminal law is the legislation of someone's morality.
That may be true, if you believe that people aren't equal. If you read your John Stuart Mill, he claims that it's quite easy to come up with a fair, reasonable legal system, given that people should be treated equally (which is a value statement, I'll grant you that, but it's at a mostly universal value). My rights stop where yours begin. I can do whatever the hell I want as long as I don't infinge on your life or liberty.
where do we draw the line? so i needed some medical aid because i misjudged the amount of heroin i could ingest. the guy next to me misjudged the maximum size of an object that can be inserted into his anus while allowing for safe, self-removal. should he be denied medical care too? or what about the guy who misjudges the speed he can take a curve in his car. should he be denied medical care? or what about the guy who misjudged the stability of the roof he was repairing and it collapses? should he be denied medical care?
If we were talking about an ordinary murder, I'd agree. If a killing is, by chance, caught on CCTV, and the tape ends up getting circulated among those who enjoy such material, then viewing it, while weird and unpleasant, shouldn't be a crime in itself. If it was, we'd have to shut down rotten.com...
But if we're talking about illegal porn, the reason the murder or the child abuse or whatever was committed in the first place is to sell videos. Hence the customer who buys these things is, in effect, sponsoring the killing or the rape. If I hire a hitman to rub out an enemy, I'm a criminal. If I pay for a snuff movie... I think I share the guilt there too.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Quoting the judge: after Lawrence, government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code [...] as a legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest. Meaning it can neither slip past the "strict scrutiny" test if fundamental rights are involved, nor even pass the lighter-weight "rational basis" test. It can't justify a law at all, period, case dismissed.
That basically at one stroke rules that the entire "social conserative" agenda may never be legislated, and reverses everything they already have on the books. I can practically hear their screams from here, and I'm in England.
If higher courts pick this up, it'll be the biggest thing since Roe v Wade. Heck, bigger.
I think what has happened is the Republicans who believed in those two things have either become Libertarians, or only still reluctantly vote for people like Bush. And to fill that void, the party has sucked in Democrats and Moderates who care more about religion than common sense civil government. So basically they've alienated the people who really believe in personal liberty. I sincerely hope McCain leads the charge to taking back the Republican party.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Interesting, but not surprising.
Next time you're at the supermarket, look at the tabloids. What you see in there is a combination of titillation and outraged posturing. How better to disguise your own sexual desires, even from yourself, then to assume a posture of moral outrage? Of course, the tabloids have photos of semi-naked celebrities only because paparazzi are paid outrageous sums to intrude into private spaces to take pictures of people who think they are in a place where no one can see them. It's like having someone barge into your bathroom while you take a shower and being outraged that you aren't wearing any clothes. And yet, these tabloids sell like hotcakes by doing this and appealing to purient outrage. So who are the perverts here?
There's another interesting thing going on here. Yesterday my wife and I were trying to figure out why some people get turned on by S&M. We just couldn't see the attraction. Then it occurred to me that it has to do with guilt: crime and punishment. If you're naughty you must be punished, but the punishment itself gives you permission to be naughty. The other side of the equation is the dom, who punishes the submissive; the attraction here is power and control. The dom is in fact attempting to control their own desires; they are also motivated by guilt, which they escape by shifting it on to the submissive. The submissive is the naughty one. (In fact I've heard it said that the submissive is actually the one in control in S&M--at least when it's done right, and a lot of doms just play the role for the benefit of the submissive.)
And then it struck me: this whole 'family values' thing is kink! The outraged moralists are frustrated doms, obsessed with sex, desparate to partake in it. The reason they are so offended by the sexual practices of others is that they just can't stop thinking about it. So they displace the guilt. It's your fault that they're thinking about it--if you would just stop doing it, they could stop thinking of it. In the Muslim world, this is the motivation behind the hijab, the bhurka, and female cirumcision.
What we are witnessing is a sexual disfunction elevated to the level of a social and political movement. But it's still just kink.
The Civil War amptly demonstrated how much states' rights count for in the USA.
Well, there was the court case that was on I believe, 60 minutes, of the video rental shop owner somewhere in Utah who was brought up on obscenity charges. His not-famous attorney had a brainstorm, and subpoened the satellite TV companies' records for porn rentals in the community (since obscenity is supposed to be defined at the "community" level and found that those outraged citizens were viewing a LARGE amount satellite porn. He proved that the video store owner was well within community standards, and the charges were dropped.
DirecTV, Hughes, etc are owened by MUCH larger corporations, but you will NEVER see them break out their earnings by adult TV subscriptions, because General Motors or Rupert Murdoch (or EchoStar or whomever) don't want you to know that they are one of the US's largest porn distributors.
> No problem with freedom to put in your body what
> you want; however, there is a limit when that
> interferes with other's rights (drunk driving,
> for example).
That's where the notion of personal responsibility comes into play. I don't think one should be banned from getting drunk any more than I think the state should have the power to stop someone from smoking a joint or snorting cocaine. Providing an individual doesn't jump in a car, then so be it. We don't ban alcohol because some people are idiot enough to drive while under the influence, so why shouldn't the same notion be extended to heroin or marijuana.
> I'm also not to keen on having to pay through
> health insurance costs and tax dollars to keep
> pumping the stomach of every drug addict on the
> streets.
This is a dangerous slippy slope. Shall we forbid downhill skiing because of the risks of knee injuries? How about Big Macs? Should we ban those as well?
In a free society, we shouldn't be trying to micromanage anybody's life. I'd rather have my tax dollars go to pay to try to help out some poor bastard who is addicted to crack, rather than having the "Moral Majority" or whatever group claims to be speaking God or whoever telling me I can't smoke a joint or watch a porn flick.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you are going to cut hairs for Libertarians, you should do the same for anarchists. Anarchy often gets described as the abscense of government. However, anarchism is more accurately described as a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.
Anarchists can see the value of laws and regulations - but they also see the associated negative aspects such as the quasi-military forces (and the inevitable abuse of the powers of this force) required to support them. Anarchism is the belief that there are better strategies - which seems like there is some overlap with Libertarians in this regard because there are many things that authority will impose its will on - because it can and wants to subjugate, not because it is right or better for society or the individuals that live in that society.
The secret prison at Guantanamo is an interesting example. What happens when the force used to enforce the law, when there is no law? Does this not reveal something to us about the law itself?
Well see thats the problem. The answer is of course not, but in aggregate the answer has to be yes. The reason is: incentive. Here in California we have a *massive* illegal immigrant problem. Its estimated that each californian pays 1000$ in taxes per year to support services that go to illegals.
If we stopped providing services to them, that would be cruel and heartless right? But how else to stop them from coming? Right now were saying "don't come here, but if you do, we wont ask questions".
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
The human brain doesn't stop it's main development till the age of 20 or 21 in general. The idea is to let people's brain develop normlaly then let them drink. A healthy citizen is a good, voting citizen.
States have no rights. Communities have no rights. People have rights, including the right to do whatever they want either by themselves or with another consenting adult, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights.
Rights are absolute, regardless of location. I hate this relativist claptrap that says ``it's a different culture, so it's alright if they infringe on people's fundamental rights''. It's not alright. It's Immoral, dictatorial, and repugnant.
If a community tries to deny its constituents protection of their rights because they don't like said rights, then the ability to govern should be taken away from them, by force if need be.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
And yet there are many types of issue, and people's thinking about economics doesn't necessarily correlate with that on social issues, or morality, or the military, or culture, &c. Being aware of the difference can help you to think more clearly about them.
For example, Political Compass uses a two-dimensional grid for displaying political positions, with an economic axis (traditional left/right), and a social one (libertarian/authoritarian). On that scale, for example, the opposite of communism (at the extreme left) is neo-liberalism (at the extreme right), and the opposite of anarchism (at the extreme libertarian end) is fascism (at the extreme authoritarian end).
It's still simplistic in many ways, but presents a vastly more useful way of thinking about politics. Recommended.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
In short, why are Christians so scared?
Simple. In 2000/2001, they thought Jesus would return but didn't. This makes them question if he is returning at all. Over time, their fear will turn to hate. Considering we have Evangicals running for office more now, it's only takes time before they launch nuclear weapons so they can punish their "enemies" for disagreeing with them. All this from an ancient document.
The court's decision rested in part on Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Under Lawrence, said the court, 'upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.'"
I know this will be slightly off-topic, but...
Being a gay man that would really like to marry his partner, this is phenomenal. I'm tired of being told that I'm immoral, I can't adopt children, get married, etc because it's not in the State's interest (which is to encourage procreation, apparently).
Getting off my soapbox now...
That's exactly what I was thinking. Moreover, in today's social climate, there are many major group dichotomies which do not fall along state boundaries. For example, urban vs. rural: a voter in Chicago often has a lot more in common with one in New York than one in Decatur (IL). But you can't even draw the line there, because it gets more complicated. As people of all stripes have picked up their bags and dispersed throughout the U.S.A. in the 217 years since the Constitution was framed, it's become a lot harder to corral the different interest groups. Whereas old, established communities with equally well-established interests and problems persist to this day in other parts of the world, the U.S. is overrun with McDonalds-SUV-strip mall-powered suburbs where no one really knows or cares about anyone. While on the surface Americans appear very open and mobile, we have indeed succeeded in developing an extreme form of provinciality where just going over to the neighbors' house is unthinkable, especially when your favorite TV show is on at home. At the lowest levels, we suffer from a deep and growing disunity which will serve as a major challenge in the continuance of this once-great nation.