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.'"

Comments

Paul Graham Essay

[vladd_rom]

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).

Re:Paul Graham Essay

[vsprintf]

Wonderful essay. Thanks for the link!

Wonderful essay?

Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot.

If you don't argue with idiots, you will find yourself ruled by policies set by idiots. I won't go into all the idiotic legislation we have because we failed to argue hard enough with the idiots in charge.

about time

[lordkuri]

upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest.

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.

Re:about time

[Anonymous Coward]

...upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest...

it's about fucking time!

Exactly!

Re:about time

[hunterx11]

You miss the point. In a free country, people with different beliefs can co-exist, and do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Having a democratic totalitarian state is not the only possibilty, and it is certainly not one that the U.S. should choose.

Re:about time

[TWX]

The problem is that people will increasingly tailor laws to restrict behaviour that has no bearing on them whatsoever because it offends their beliefs somehow. Basically antisodomy, antifornication, antidrinking, antidrug, and antipornography laws all fit the bill for many of these people. It doesn't matter that they don't engage in any of these activities, they don't want anyone else to engage in them either, even when these activities don't have any victims by definition. By converse, I don't do what these people do (congregate and evangelize about their invisible best friend who sees all, knows all, and needs money) but I don't work toward prohibiting them from doing so, and I don't tell them that they have to be like me. I simply want them to let me do what I want to do so long as I don't victimize anyone in doing it. That's the very important difference.

Re:about time

[rhakka]

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.

Re:about time

[NDPTAL85]

Why are you libertarians unable to see the value in any law or regulation?

A car is a sometimes many thousand pound moving piece of metal. You don't think the government has an interest in making sure that people know how to operate them properly?

The AMA sets standards so you don't get doctors who think that washing his hands is well "a waste of time".

But hell the common sense built up over the centuries isn't worth a damn if it leads to a rule or law that saves lives right?

Re:about time

[magefile]

OK ... and when you (or someone else) takes a non-FDA drug, does that mean you waive all rights to suck up my tax dollars when you show up at the emergency room?

Re:about time

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:about time

[defile]

OK ... and when you (or someone else) takes a non-FDA drug, does that mean you waive all rights to suck up my tax dollars when you show up at the emergency room?

That's an easy yes. Is this a trick question?

Re:about time

[snooo53]

Why are you libertarians unable to see the value in any law or regulation?

Now hold on here. Of course most libertarians, just like anyone else in a civil society, see the value in laws and regulations. People always stereotype Libertarians as wanting to start some anarchist society, which couldn't be farther from the truth. The whole idea behind Libertarianism is that people have a fundamental right to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And when someone does infringe on the rights of others, they must take full responsiblity for their actions. Of course we need laws and regulations... how else would you decide when someone does something wrong?

There is such a huge disconnect between common sense and many laws and regulations in this country. How is it that we trust 18 year olds to operate guns and missiles and WMD's and yet we can't trust them to drink alcohol until they are 21?! Why is it against the law to circumvent copyright protection to play a DVD in Linux? Why do public protests have to be carefully planned out and approved by the local govt?

With any group you get fringe people who would ignore thousands of years of common sense. But the vast majority of libertarians are a lot more moderate in their views than most people outside the party think

Re:about time

[ahodgson]

As long as you waive the same rights when you eat at McDonald's, or drink beer, or drive over the speed limit, or participate in dangerous sports.

Oh, not interested? Guess what, living is dangerous. That's why we have emergency rooms. Not that I particularly think they should be taxpayer funded, but excluding only your pet peeve is stupid.

Re:about time

[Scrameustache]

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.

Lets see. First of all, watching porn doesn't hurt anyone. Being unable to buy food does.

Secondly, the wellfare of the state is dependant on the wellfare of it's citizens. Wellfare isn't a purely moral endeavour, it's there to provide the population with bread and circuses so that they will be content and do not rise up against the government.

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.

The right to health and security is harmed by lack of food or overabundance of guns.

Gun laws aren't meant to prohibit gun ownership. They are meant to regulate gun ownership, just like cars can't be driven in public roads by anyone or medecine practised by anyone, guns shouldn't be allowed in everybody's hand. It's a matter of public safety.

Lumping gun laws in with obscenity laws is absurd. Guns injure and kill, pictures of genitalia don't.

Re:about time

[jonnystiph]

OK ... and when you (or someone else) takes a non-FDA drug, does that mean you waive all rights to suck up my tax dollars when you show up at the emergency room?

Two things, first and foremost. In most "non-FDA" drug, emergency room related incidents; it is a matter of life and death. Most "hard drug" consumers are breaking laws they don't want to face until they have too. Are you going to say that your tax dollars are more important than someone's life. Even if they may be a "drug taking fiend". Sometimes good people make mistakes too.

Second point, I am willing to wager that emergency rooms see ten times more drunk driver casulties than drug OD's.

So what about people that drink and drive? Are they sucking up your tax dollars too? That's an FDA approved drug.

Re:about time

[daigu]

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?

Re:about time

[Monkelectric]

Are you going to say that your tax dollars are more important than someone's life

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".

Re:about time

[randallpowell]

The drinking age seems to me to be wrongly placed, but I'm willing to listen to any attempts to justify it.

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.

Re:about time

[coaxial]

Now hold on here. Of course most libertarians, just like anyone else in a civil society, see the value in laws and regulations. People always stereotype Libertarians as wanting to start some anarchist society, which couldn't be farther from the truth. The whole idea behind Libertarianism is that people have a fundamental right to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And when someone does infringe on the rights of others, they must take full responsiblity for their actions. Of course we need laws and regulations... how else would you decide when someone does something wrong?

That all sounds good and no one would object to having laws that limit individual freedom the least, while simultaneously protecting society as a whole. Like the old adage says, "The right to swing your fists stops where my nose begins."

The problem with the libertarian party, and the reason why they're viewed as antiregulation zealots, is because that's the image the party's official statements paint.

Now I could go through their platform and official statements over the years, and write treatise on how the perfectly reasonable political philosophy has been perverted and drastically undermined by the reactionary zealots of the Libertarian Party, but I won't. Instead I'll lillustrate the point by examining the party's opposition to the thousands of year old role of government ensuring the health and safety of its citizenry. A role that is not only considered reasonable by the vast majority, but also popular with the citizens. A role of government that widely regarded, that the LP's oposition to which is typically used by the party's detractors to illustrate just how out of touch the party is. I'm going to talk the about meat inspectors.

The Libertarian Party is against meat inspectors because people are smart enough not to buy infected meat, therefore anyone selling infected meat would go out of buisness. That all may be true, but there's typically no way for the average person to stand at the meat counter at the local Kroger's and start testing for E.Coli.

Furthermore, they argue that the "USDA Approved" sticker lulls the public into a false sense of safety since all the meat they buy is "USDA approved". They then turn around and argue that this "false sense of safety" doesn't exist with the ubiquitous "UL Approved" stickers because Underwriter's Labs is an industrial organization. Figuring out why the average citizen would be deadened to a sticker because of who was putting them on rather than by the sticker's ubiquity is apparently left as an exercise for the reader.

The LP in every case touts "voluntary self-regulation of industry", like a mantra. The sole reason for this is "less taxes". Yes, VSR would ideally result in less taxes, but there's a catch. VSR doesn't work.

There exists an intrinisic advesarial relationship between the regulator and the regulated. This doesn't mean that they're always at each others' throats, ideally they're not, but it's not, nor should it every be, an relationship between equals. VSR puts the regulated in a superior position over the regulators. First, those being regulated decide what the rules should be. Typically, they're initially set just beyond current practices, because VSR is almost always introduced as a fix to an industry-wide PR disaster. So right off, the regulations are weak. Next there's no penaltys for violating even these regulations because they're voluntary. If you group didn't comply, it's because they didn't have to. So in the end, nothing changes, and the VSR industry is just as unregulated as before. Conversely, when strong government regulations exist, and when there's proper funding of enforcement of the the regulations (I say this, because cutting of enforcement budgets has been a popular tactic of late because it effectively eliminates the regulations, without the political fallout of actually eliminating the regulations.) there's actually penalties such as fines and possible jail time for violators.

Re:about time

[MacJedi]

It's fairly simple: stop employing them. As long as there exist companies who are advantaged by illegally employing illegal immigrants (because they can pay them less, don't have to give them health benefits, can fire them at will, etc.) there will be an illegal immigrant problem.

It's pretty vicious really, because these same employers don't want legal immigrants, whom they would have to pay fairly. They want the immigrants and they want them illegal. And they don't especially care that you, the tax payer, have to foot the bill for services to them.

Re:about time

[rhakka]

actually, you can't make a statement like that at all. Heart disease is a major killer here in a america, and car accidents are big too. Exactly how big do you think unapproved drug problems would really be? Cause it would have to be HUGE to compare.

Re:about time

[Monkelectric]

It's fairly simple: stop employing them.

What if, the same people making money off them were using that money to bribe state and federal officals in charge of the whole mess?

Re:about time

[Undefined Parameter]

If the reason(s) you hold for stopping immigration are good, they should apply to all illegal immigrants. If this is the case, you need to look at why those immigrants are coming, at risk of deportation, imprisonment and, in some cases, death. Then you need to start addressing that problem.

In the past, the primary motivating factor for most immigrants to the US was economic; if this has held true, then the best way to "stem the tide" of immigration--both legal and otherwise--is to economically invest in these other countries. Start companies, build factories, give low-interest loans... any sort of investment along those lines would help both them and you.

The problem, of course, is that in order to save money (on healthcare), you have to spend it (on investment), first. The good news is that, given the relative economies of the world, this shouldn't be too expensive for most Americans (for we are all in this together, citizen, resident alien, and illegal immigrant alike).

~UP

good reasons

[BorgCopyeditor]

If it were a legitimate state interest, then we would need laws banning sloth and greed, too, and no one here in the U.S. really wants that.

Re:good reasons

[Znork]

Yes, murder is a crime against the state, as it deprives the state of taxpayers.

Re:good reasons

[gaijin99]

I disagree with your basic assumption that laws are based on what the state has an interest in outlawing. The state exists at our sufferance and for our purposes, not the other way around. It can be argued that the state has a legitimate interest in forcing the citizens to be healthy by mandating diets and exercise. But in the US, and in other free countries, the citizens do not exist to serve the state.

I would argue that murder is illegal becuase it harms a citizen without that citizen's concent. Same thing with theft, battery, etc. But when citizen Foo views pornography it does not harm citizen Bar. It might offend citizen Bar, but being offended is not being harmed.

Now, on the "your right to punch ends where my nose begins" principle, I can see banning public displays of pornography. Citizen Foo has a right to read Playboy, that does not mean that citizen Foo has a right to inflict Playboy on unwilling participants. Similarly your car stereo can be as loud as you want, just as long as you don't force other people to listen to your music.

But if someone claims that the mere existance of things they disapprove of is somehow harmful to them (or anyone else) I will mock them.

My Reaction.

[neoshroom]

Fuck yeah!

More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[CrankyFool]

It's quite probable that a Pittsburgh judge _would_ be more conservative than a CA judge. The mistake the authorities might have made -- and it's a natural mistake you make here also -- is in thinking that 'conservative' is a label applied to people who have conservative social stances only, rather than people who also have conservative judicial stances.

It wasn't too long ago that 'conservatives' were the people who were loathe to add more laws and regulations that interfere with people's ability to do what they wanted, and were arguing we needed a very strong, clear harm to be present in an activity before it was legislated against. These days, the neocons and social conservatives (and Christian Fascists, frankly) have stolen the 'conservative' label and have started to label anyone who doesn't agree with their social policies as a liberal (with the obvious implications that liberals are the ones taking down this country, corrupting our youth, and providing hostelling services to travelling al Queda terrorists, of course).

It's perfectly within reason that a conservative person would find an anti-obscenity law ludicrous and offensive, and it's good that this one did.

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[demachina]

It is sad that the right wing, fundementalist Christian, fanatics in power have stolen and trashed the conservative label since they quite obviously don't have the first clue what political conservatism stands for, balanced budgets, small government, no intrusion in our private lives, no trade deficits, no foreign adventures, etc. Government spending under the Bush regime has exploded by 25% in the last three years, not to mention half trillion budget and trade deficits, optional wars abroad, the Patriot Act, etc.

I assure you the Bush administration and the new Republican party has noticed this little problem with these politicly conservative judges blocking government intrusion and invasion of our lives and they are going to fix it in the next four years.

You can be sure judges nominated by the Bush administration are going to be right wing, social conservatives, not political conservatives, and probably fundementalist Christian to boot, as their litmus test. The other litmust test will be their willingness to allow the state to use law to impose its view of morality and security by force, at the expense of the Constitution and our civil liberties.

Of course our great nation of laws was designed for the possibility that an extremist party might gain power and attempt to stack the courts with extremist judges. Thats why their is a filibuster in the Senate so a supermajority is required to approve controversial laws or judges. It prevents a majority party in power from going off the deep end, in law or judicial appointments, and is a critical element of checks and balances.

Unfortunately the Republican's are already talking about changing the Senate rules this year to do away with the filibuster on judicial nominees and require only a simple majority. If that happens they can nominate truly extreme judges, including to the Supreme Court, and as long as they can hold a party line vote they will be be approved. An essential check and balance, the filibuster, will be gone and another will be in imminent danger.

If the Republican's succeed in this rule change it is time to start marching in the streets because it means these extremists will have stolen your government from you. After four years of packing the courts, especially the Supreme court, they will have erased one more of the crucial checks and balances. The courts are an essential check on an extremist legislature and President who seek to pass laws in contravention of the Constitution and our precious civil liberties, civil liberties we have taken for granted and are about to lose.

If the New Republican Party succeeds in eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominations its just a matter of time before they eliminate it in the Senate all together. At that point the Democrats may as well not even bother showing up because they will be impotent and powerless. We will be effectively living in a one party state, and one party states are synonymous with dictatorship. The Republican's will be able to pass any law they can hold a party line vote on, and if they've packed the courts it wont be overturned in the courts.

There is irony when the right wing talks so much about all the blood that's been shed by soldiers over the last two centuries, blood shed protecting our freedom and civil liberties. The irony is they appear to be the ones seeking to dismantle those same freedoms through subterfuge and political trickery. The burning question, are their any great patriots still alive today willing to stand up and defend the world's first great experiment in Democracy in the hour of its greatest peril. These patriots will have a far harder job than their forefathers did when they joined an Army and carried a gun in to a war. They will have a job as hard as the founding fathers did when they stood up in rebellion against a tyrannical King. They will have to stand against their own government, their own neighbors and risk being branded as a traitor. They will face prison where the rule of law can apparently no longer can be counted upon, and torture has become acceptable practice. Are their any people left in this once great nation with the fortitude, and the greatness, to save it from itself?

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[Bluetick]

Conservatives were for small government when they could use the term states' rights as a euphemism for segregation in southern states. However, whether they were truly ever for states' rights and small federal government is debateable, their support for it evaporated as fast as you can say legalized medical marijuana, doctor assisted suicide, gay marriage or counting votes.

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[nfgaida]

The American system is really well designed to stop dictatorship. The Republicans can pass and enforce any law which has a genuine majority of the people at most levels in support of it. That's not really that terrifying.

What is terrifying to me is that a genuine majority of the people in America seem to be happy/not care about the looming social conservative legislation and loss of civil rights.

Me thinks that perhaps America has grown too fat and lazy on the backs of the rest of the world, and is heading for an implosion. I only wonder where in the world will be safe while the storm passes.

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[demachina]

"The have to get laws passed"

Not a problem at a Federal level if they dismantle the Senate filibuster as is their plan. Or if they gain a few more Senate seats in 2 years. The Democrats are in such a state of collapse they may well have a fillibuster proof majority in two years. They are already completely powerless in the House, I dont know why they even show up.

They Republicans have already taken to disappearing in to Republican only conference committees with Dick Cheney where they rewrite legislation to suit them and throw aside every compromise reached on the floor of the senate and house, then they shove the legislation through on a party line vote usually before anyone has actually read it. They are intentionally rushing through legislation authored in secret before anyone can read it or opposition can build. Writing the laws has already been largely hijacked by the New Republican Party.

A sterling example is someone snuck in a clause in the intelligence bill giving several Republican committee chairs unrestrained power to look at the tax records of anyone they choose, which has been used in the past to dredge up dirt on political opponents and dissidents, most recently in the Nixon administration. It was caught at the last minute and I think it was never discovered who put it in the bill. Is that how you think laws should be written in a Democracy?

"They need the support of juries (that is the population"

There aren't any juries in the appealate and Supreme Court where the decisions that ultimately count are decided.

The White House has already bestowed upon itself the right to arrest American citizens and citizens of any nation, without charge and without trial which, means without judge and jury, and deny them access to a lawyer or their families indefinitely. Jose Padilla is the most visible case of an American citizen, there are prisons around the globe filled with detainees from many nations who have no prayer of every seeing a jury. The Supreme court gutlessly punted the Padilla case on a technicality when it reached them last year. Once again if you have 4 extremists on the court they may well bless this shredding of the Constitution and the destuctions of the rule of law in America and around the world. You wont need juries after that. Maybe they can drum up a military tribunal for you for show and still be confident of the outcome.

"They need the support of judges"

As I said, this is at the top of the New Republican party's agenda for the next four years. A check and balance is that Federal judges have life terms so its hard to pack them in 4 or 8 years. The problem is ultimate power rests with the Supreme court. Even if the Bush administration loses in a lower court they can push most issues to the Supreme court especially if they have a sympathetic court.

The Supreme court has a reasonably healthy balance at the moment but its expected 3 moderates will retire in Bush's second term. Scalia or Thomas, the two rabid young right wingers may well get Chief Justice this year when Rehnquist steps down due to the thyroid cancer.

After Rehnquist Bush just needs to replace one more of the left to moderate justices and he will have a very right leaning court. One more after that which is likely in Bush's term and the have the court that counts packed. If the Senate has changed the rules on the filibuster of judicial nominees, Bush can appoint any extremist he feels like, as long as he holds his party together in the Senate.

"The American system is really well designed to stop dictatorship."

Yes it is, in particular because the founding fathers thouroughly expected it to happen, and as I recall many of them expected it to happen despite their best efforts. The one thing they couldn't do anything about is that the American people would shirk their civic duty and allow it happen, or in fact vote it in which they seem to be doing. Americans have for the most part abandoned their sense of civic duty, t

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[Lord Kano]

It is sad that the right wing, fundementalist Christian, fanatics in power have stolen and trashed the conservative label...

It's funny because, assuming that you're correct, they were only able to do this because of the huge numbers of people who were ostracized and excluded by "progressives" and liberals. Anyone who is ever so slightly to the right of center plainly is not wanted by the Democrats. The Republicans are more than happy to accept these people.

LK

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[demachina]

If you will recall in 2000 the majority of the American people voted for the Democrat. The Senate was dead even and swung one way and then the other based on the decision of one independent.

It was only by several cruel twists of fate, the electoral college, and an aggressive Republican strategy, with the help of the Presiden'ts brother, to block a recount in Florida that they siezed the White House. Subsequent studies indicate Florida was a dead heat, 4-5 recount methodologies went to Gore, 4-5 went to Bush. In a state with a dead heat, and an electoral deadlock, I'd say the tie breaker should go to the winner of the popular vote.

You didn't have "huge numbers" then, don't think you have them now.

Fast forward to 2004, well Bush did win by 3 million votes but he won by what, 60-100 thousand votes in Ohio, with numeerous irregularities, or he would have lost. The Democrats were trounced in the House and Senate granted.

But there were two things that happened that had nothing to do with the Democrats embracing or not embracing the people on the center/right.

One was 9/11. The Republicans played this issue to the hilt, they mercilessly exploited a tragedy at every turn to paint themselves as America's only competent defenders and the Democrats as weak and defenseless. It has nothing to do with people embracing the Republicans. They scared the pants off of everyone gullible enough to fall for it. Lots of people did. Remember the rhetoric at the Republican convention.

The other was gay marriage. Again it was an issue ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans to paint a picture that if the Democrats had their way gays would be wedding across the nation. What was the reality, Democrats mostly favored civil uniions to give gay couples basic legal protections and that states should decide the issue otherwise so liberal states could decide one way and conservative another. Bush demanded a constitutional amendment banning it across the nation and made it it in to a life or death wedge issue. Whats happened since, Bush has largely dropped the issue, the Republicans and Democrats are in fact pretty much at the same place, favoring civil unions and letting states decide. You see the election is over and Bush doesn't need this wedge issue any more to drive voters in to his column. It worked great last year when he need it though. By getting it on the ballot in 11-12 states they also drove large numbers of socially conservative voters out to vote and they probably voted Republican after they voted no on Gay Marriage. It was a brilliant strategy.

I really doubt the elections had anything to do with the realities of the electoral landscape, of the center and right turning on the lefties. It was an exercise in ruthless, brilliant campaigners crushing an inept Democratic party.

Oh and the other factor is, the Democratic party is just fielding really bad candidates with really bad strategy backing them up. Dean was the only candidate with a strategy and he both stuck his foot in his mouth a couple times and was destroyed by the media. Wont really get me to defend the Democrats, they are pathetic and getting more so everyday.

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[Lord Kano]

If you will recall in 2000 the majority of the American people voted for the Democrat.

No. A plurality did.

You didn't have "huge numbers" then, don't think you have them now.

Then, clearly not. This time is debatable.

Remember the rhetoric at the Republican convention.

No. I didn't watch either convention. My decision was made in 2000. When Bush won the 2000 election, I knew I'd be voting for him again in 2004.

The other was gay marriage. Again it was an issue ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans to paint a picture that if the Democrats had their way gays would be wedding across the nation.

It's not fair to blame the Republicans for spiking the ball when the Democrats gave them such a perfect set for it.

Democrats were beating the drum of "gay rights" and the Republicans took advantage of society's revulsion at that.

By getting it on the ballot in 11-12 states they also drove large numbers of socially conservative voters out to vote and they probably voted Republican after they voted no on Gay Marriage. It was a brilliant strategy.

Once again, the social liberals set this up. By pushing the issue in state supreme courts, they forced the opposition to step up the fight. The US Supreme Court's sodomy decision and the Massachusetts supreme court's decision on gay marriage caused a backlash. You can't blame Republicans for taking advantage.

I really doubt the elections had anything to do with the realities of the electoral landscape, of the center and right turning on the lefties. It was an exercise in ruthless, brilliant campaigners crushing an inept Democratic party.

The Democrat base is now so far to the left that they didn't have the ability to run to the center they way they did in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut in 1992. He signed the "welfare reform" law in 1996. He courted centrist voters. In this election the democrats couldn't do that. After vilifying Bush's tax cut for 3 years, they couldn't then claim to want tax cuts.

Wont really get me to defend the Democrats, they are pathetic and getting more so everyday.

I'll defend and attack them at the same time. So many of the Democrat's ideals are wonderful. I'd love to see some of their social policies become law, problem is that the rest of their platform is so repugnant to me that I can never support them in a presidential election.

LK

Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources...

[instarx]

My decision was made in 2000. When Bush won the 2000 election, I knew I'd be voting for him again in 2004.

That statement alone indicates you are not competent or qualified to make intelligent political commentary. For all you knew Bush would break every campaign promise he ever made about honesty, openness and integrity in his administration, create a police state with secret imprisonments, cancel habeus corpus, approve the use of torture, invade a country under false pretenses, driven the US into a half a trillion dollar debt, begun the dismantling of social security, politicize the civil service, appoint incompetents throughout his cabinet, and preside over the worst four years of the stock market since the Great Depression, and then STILL wouldn't be able to think of a single thing he did wrong in the previous four years. But, oh boy, you knew you'd vote for him in 2004 when he won in 2000.

Its knee jerk reality-challenged people like you that just make me shake my head in wonder.

Pr0n always leading the way...

[TheLoneDanger]

Pr0n once again leading the way... from techonology to sane legal precedents, pr0n is probably the biggest motivator for change in human history.

Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?

Re:Pr0n always leading the way...

[HeghmoH]

Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?

Get you laid.

Re:Pr0n always leading the way...

[dcam]

Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?

Something positive? There are no positives in pornography.

Re:Yay for free speech...

[CaptainEbo]

That's not what this case says. Laws prohibiting murder are passed under the "police power" which allows states to regulate in order to preserve the "health and safety" of individuals. In other words, murder laws are health and safety laws, not morality laws.

Supreme Court ruling needed now

[Fjandr]

The best thing that could happen now is for this to be appealed to the Supreme Court, to have them grant certiorari, and to find along the same lines as they did in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

It's about time that it's been determined that "public morality" does not extend past public places. Then again, there has been much absurdity in both laws and judicial decisions for as long as there have been laws and judicial decisions.

Hopefully this is the start of a trend that will continue. The major "if" is who GWB will put on the Court after Rehnquist retires/dies. However, with what the Democrats have been doing regarding nominations to any post call into question whether anyone could possibly be confirmed onto the Court. We might just have a vacancy forever, because if the Democrats can do it, so can the Republicans if a Democrat wins in 2008. :)

Re:Supreme Court ruling needed now

[Fjandr]

I wasn't aware of either of those. Both are good if what you say is true.

It's not that I support Shrublet and his neocons, but filibustering appointments because of political grudges is ludicrous. There's either a valid reason to keep someone out of office or there's not. If there's a valid reason, it should be laid out on the table. If there's not, suck it up, your party lost, try harder next election.

Re:Supreme Court ruling needed now

[slothman32]

To extremize, and get modded troll, you could say that just because shrub "won," we don't even know because of lack of receipts, he has a mandate to put judges on the bench that will make our once great country as free as a fourth world. If the judges wanted to make an Orellian state then even if the president was elected she still shouldn't be approved. If a judge will declare laws that you think are in fact unconstitutional then they should not be approved. Regardless of who is president. If I think that gay marriage is not just right but in fact not deniable by the gov't then a judge who will say it, against my interpretation, is not with the Const. then I have a right to not approve them since they really will be activist. That is they will create a ruling that actually is against the Const. instead of the usual so-called activist judges who in fact remove laws that are against it but also against ones created by the legislature.

Re:Supreme Court ruling needed now

[Fjandr]

I think that buried in your somewhat confusing post is agreement with the reasoning that a valid argument should be laid on the table if one is to be found. If a judge is going to use the Constitution for toilet paper, that would be a valid reason to oppose their confirmation, would it not? I wasn't opposing opposition to confirmations, just the way the filibuster rules have been used recently to indefinitely delay confirmation without clearly stating a valid reason (even a specific ideological reason) for the opposition.

Hell Freezes Over!

[phaln]

It's a relief to know that there are still Constitutionally-adhering judges out there looking out for individual freedom rather than the state.

Re:I'm with you here.

[lordkuri]

it doesn't matter if it's porn or whatever... the judge summed it up perfectly. It is not the right nor the job of government to tell an adult person what they can see/think/read, and anything of the sort *is* an infringement on my liberties.

I also find it pretty funny that the bible-thumping types that are always so vocal about porn had a conference in some hotel a while back, and that hotel reported a 600% increase of their in-room porn rentals over that weekend... pot, meet kettle.

Hmm

[mattyrobinson69]

const...err...constitution?

that was one of those things they used to have back when everybody worked down the mines in the UK, and walked to work, nine miles up hill, and back nine miles up hill, in the wind and hail, every day, wasn't it?

But seriously, thank god somebody remembers the constitution.

Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Remember when Republicans were all about not getting involved state issues? (pre-Reagan) What happened is that they have discovered that it's so better to aggregate the power into the hands of the few via legislation and control the populace and impose "morality" that way.

Take the gay marriage issue. Should this REALLY be a federal issue? Of course not and thank heavens that Sen. McCain pointed out that such a federal law would interfere with "state's rights".

Federal anti-obscenity laws aren't any different. What doesn't play in Peoria could be considered as quite tame in NYC.

Re:Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds....

[snooo53]

Yes, I agree. The Republican party has been shifting away from it's libertarian roots ever since the Newt Gingrich and Contract with America days. They no longer care about fiscal responsibility, states rights and individual freedoms.

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.

Re:Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds....

[ahodgson]

The Civil War amptly demonstrated how much states' rights count for in the USA.

Debates Like This A Part of Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "entertaining lewd and lustful thoughts stimulated by viewing material that appeals to one's purient interests . . . . is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private."

Gotta love logic like that. Gotta love how our country is obsessed with "morals" in the bedroom (or computer room, wherever that may be) that affect no one other than the consenting adults involved. Go read some Kant and later responses and rejections to Kant to get a feel for what more substantial morals are like.

That said, the puritan and sexual freedom argument has been going on as far back as we have records, especially in opulent societies such are ours. Important to have both sides, but equally important that a balance is maintained. Often time one isn't, and more often seems to move towards the puritan perspective than towards "Babylonical Chaos" (as a 16th century sermon I recently read put it). But then again, our current perspectives on sex are hardly eternal, and we are forced to see all other eras' sexual perspectives through our own. "We are not a mirror for history" to paraphrase Goethe, "but history is a mirror for us."

All that said, I'm glad to see this struck down. I should be able to do what I damn well please as long I don't violate another's agency in my own home. We all should, including having odd ideas about what the highest form of morality is, as this country wonderfully shows.

Re:I'm with you here.

[Tassach]

I also find it pretty funny that the bible-thumping types that are always so vocal about porn had a conference in some hotel a while back, and that hotel reported a 600% increase of their in-room porn rentals over that weekend... pot, meet kettle.

While this does play into my personal stereotype of fundies being sexually repressed hypocrites, I'd need to see some documentation before I accept it as being true. Any sources for this fact?

Related topic (Censorship) reformatted :)

[ScruffyScrode]

Censorship
By Luke Green

Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.

It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.

The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?

There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.

Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.

Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.

In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.

Re:Thank You!

[the_mad_poster]

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).

good for them

[GtKincaid]

It certainly is a victory for the personal freedoms of people over in the USA.
The right to view so called illicet material has nothing to do with the gouvernment.
What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their homes is up to them, If they wish to publish it on the internet for free or for profit then it's up to them aswell.
If John Doe wishes to go online and look at two(or more ) consenting people "Getting jiggy" then why the hell does any gouvernment have any right to restrict a persons freedom in this manner.

This is a a wonderfull step towards ensuring your rights and i for the first time in a long while have read a story about the USA courts and not been down hearted.
alot of the religious or right wing people may find this stuff shocking , personaly im not a pr0n fan myself but and this is a big but(depends on the porn ...boom tish..) It is a persons right to choose what they view and enjoy aslong as it respects the rights of others . If you dont like porn then (here comes the cliche) Dont buy it , dont read it , don't use it.
Sure as hell dont try and stop other people from doing what they enjoy.
Lastly i must say again how good it is to see a positive news story about peoples rights being upheld

Courtship

[Doc Ruby]

We're getting at least 3 (of 9) Supreme Court justices under Bush in the next few years. And possibly Clarence "No Questions" Thomas as Supreme Supreme. Soon these activist "mind your own business" judges won't stand in the way of our glorious Christian nation's compassion towards our perverts.

Re:I'm with you here.

[Tassach]

Granted, it's porn...but is it really their--or our--business what people get off with?

No, as long as the all the participants are adults who are capable of, and have given, informed consent.

Re:I'm with you here.

[ilsa]

I also find it pretty funny that the bible-thumping types that are always so vocal about porn had a conference in some hotel a while back, and that hotel reported a 600% increase of their in-room porn rentals over that weekend... pot, meet kettle.

That's just research. They need to be able to make educated opinions about porn, after all. ;-)

Re:I'm with you here.

[conteXXt]

"It is not the right nor the job of government to tell an adult person what they can see/think/read, and anything of the sort *is* an infringement on my liberties.
"
you forgot one.....

ingest. It's none of their business what I put into my body either.

And how does freedom-loving talk radio respond?

[Pentomino]

And how many nanoseconds elapsed before the right-wing talk radio choir started their Banshee-like wailing over "activist judges"?

Re:And how does freedom-loving talk radio respond?

[DigiShaman]

As Libertarian with republican family values, I'm very happy to hear about this ruling! But as for the comment about hypocrisy, this is nothing new. It's called "politics".

The difference

[Monx]

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?

Re:Yay for free speech...

[Fjandr]

Can't steal because it involves violating someone's rights.

Can't murder because it involves violating someone's rights.

Can't have sex with children because it is an abuse of the obligations of authority.

Can't attack people on the street because it involves violating someone's rights.

Decent laws are written with protecting rights in mind. These laws are wholely separate from laws written with preventing the "offending of polite sensibilities."

Finally

[dmarx]

A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.

Re:Finally

[This is outrageous!]

The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.

Good. Let's now dismantle NASA, public roads, the National Parks, etc., as all this was terror inflicted upon us by overreaching governments.

Wrong, actually

[gaijin99]

What you just described is what Thomas Jefferson, among others, feared: the "tyrany of the majority". Contrary to popular belief the majority cannot simply pass any law it wants to. The Constitution is specifically designed to prevent the majority from passing certain kinds of laws. The Constitution can be changed, but that takes more than a simple majority, it takes a 3/4 majority in 3/4 of the states.

The reason for all that, naturally, is to protect the minority from the majority. If 51% of the pouplaiton wants to censor porn (or anything else) its simply not enough. I think our founders were quite wise to encode freedom into the Constitution and make it extremely difficult to remove those freedoms from the Constitution.

It is the government's business to do what people tell it to, but within limits.

Re:Wrong, actually

[slothman32]

You mean if 51% of people decide that the other 49% should be enslaved then that isn't enough? Rats.

Also I think it only requires a 51% in 75% of states. I could be wrong though.

Re:Wrong, actually

[koko775]

Uh, 75% of 75% is 56.25%. It takes around a simple majority, but it takes a majority spread around the nation, so that majorities in places that have a special interest in certain laws can't use power of numbers to push it through.

Re:Wrong, actually

[ca1v1n]

Actually, it must be ratified by .75 of the states, however those states decide to do it. In most states, the legislature does this. (where e is a number greater than zero) Each legislator was elected by a margin of .5 + e, and the measure had to pass by .5 + e, and .75 of the states had to ratify. So (.75)(.5 + e)(.5 + e) = .1875 + e. So, basically, 19% of the population has to approve it, but given the power of special interest groups and single-issue voting blocs in elections (apparently a majority of Republicans are pro-choice) the reality is that it requires far less than 19%.

Re: Wrong, actually

[BitchKapoor]

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.

Re:The goal

[agraupe]

are you a retard??? it's the internet, and it can't possibly be "rated". How about parents watch for this sort of thing, instead of being morons. There's no reason why kids under, say, 9, should be allowed to surf the 'net alone.

You cannot legislate anything but morality ...

[svensky]

Are all of you people so stupid that you do not realise that all laws are codified morality ?

You cannot legislate anything but morality.

Unless you think laws against murder and theft are not moral laws ?

What are they then ? Are they simply based on the personal preferences of judges and politicians ?

If that is the case then why would you bitch like little kids when they legislate in a way you don't like ?

Why is it that supposedly intelligent people have such incredibly poor reasoning skills ?

Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ...

[tmbg37]

You would be right about this, except for one thing. Laws against murder and theft are not to protect morality, but to protect one's rights, specifically the right to life and property. Laws against obscenity are not protecting anybody's rights, only infringing on them.

Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ...

[wotevah]

Dude, think before you type, especially after touting how illogical people are.

Murder happens to *also* be an immoral act. However the law is not concerned with its morality as much as with the fact that it adversely affects another person.

To put it in another words. Just because an illegal activity happens to be immoral does not imply that a connection between legality and morality.

Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ...

[wjeff]

You are so absolutely wrong, the laws against murder and theft are not laws for moral reasons. Government has one basic purpose and one purpose only, to maintain a monopoly on the use of force and coercion, and prevent the use of force and coercion by one citizen against another (policing) and by other countries/states against its own country/state (military).

This is the one area where both the Democrats and Republicans piss me off the most.

The democrats are being hypocrites as they are the ones always yelling about the republicans legislating morality, when what is welfare but moral legislation to force it citizenry to care for those less well off.

And the repubulicans are just as bad yammering about keeping government from over regulating and restricting our freedoms, and then they turn around and support laws which restrict our freedoms with regard to activities were there is no force/coercion/victim.

You can have the best reasoning skills in the world, and if your initial premises are flawed, you conclusion will be wrong every time.

I just wish people would really take the time to think about the consequences and effects of all this legislation, instead of the indulging the knee jerk, liberal pandering to "society's needy", and the conservative drive to a theocratic tyranny.

Goverment is supposed protect us from others, not take care of us, and not protect us from ourselves.

Anything else is an abuse of liberty!

This Will Be Appealled

[Landaras]

First, my background. I am an Evangelical Christian, as well as a future law student. I vote Republican more often than Democrat (not particularly liking either party), but am also a financial supporter of the EFF.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I fully expect this decision to be appealled. Remember, this decision is coming out of a district court, which is subject to review by Appeals and the Supremes. Specifically, I would argue that this case interprets Lawrence v. Texas too broadly, that Lawrence dealt with liberty concerns of regulating homosexual behavior vs. heterosexual behavior, and that this instant case incorrectly applies those liberty concerns to regulation of sexual obscenity regardless of "actor" orientation.

When it comes to sexual obscenity in general, there is more to consider than simply individual liberty. There is a undeniable cost to society from the dissemination of sexually obscene material, although I will be the first to admit the difficulty of quantifying that cost.

It is that cost that must be balanced against the demands of personal liberty.

I think it also important to bring up the still-binding 1973 case Miller v. California . That Supreme Court case held that sexually obscene material was NOT Speech, and as thus could be regulated by the several States.

The Miller Test for obscenity was that something is obscene if it "[A] appeals to the prurient [lustful] interest in sex; [B] portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, [C] taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value [the SLAPS test]." (Bracketed text is my own.)

It should be noted that Miller applied to regulation by the several States, whereas this instant case deals with federal regulation. How and why different rules apply to the federal vs. the state government is beyond my current level of skill to discuss adaquetely and in-depth.

Personally, do I believe pornography should be banned? No. But I do believe that some level of regulation is warranted, and that the benefits of that regulation must be balanced against the cost to personal liberty.

- Neil Wehneman

P.S. I have previously posted additional thoughts on how pornography regulation is and is not justified based on specific secular criteria in an older Slashdot story.

Re:This Will Be Appealled

[ir0b0t]

The call for "some level of regulation" is not a very promising standard for a new jurist-in-waiting to urge upon judges considering obscenity cases.

The issue is whether a standard can be made to determine --- specifically --- whether a particular image is or is not obscene.

I checked your previous post but did not find any specifics about which specific images you think the state has a compelling interest to regulate.

Re:This Will Be Appealled

[Unordained]

Our nation's economics are founded on the idea that we don't know what's best for us, and that relying on individually greedy, selfish people will get us the 'best' results by hit-and-miss. Since when do we enforce what's 'best' for us by law? (Okay, we try to, but since when is it also a good idea?)

As you pointed out in your other post, you need to show harm done by pornography. But not just to self. It's not a crime to be depressed or self-hating, for example. We've even upheld your right to commit suicide, and hurting yourself on purpose (cutting) is at most going to land you in a mental hospital while someone tries to figure out if you're sane enough to have rights or not. Does pornography hurt others, then?

How does pornography harm others? The only way it could is through the actions of individuals. And the only way we could blame porn itself is if in at least the extreme majority of cases, the individuals involved had lost all self-control and were no longer responsible for their actions. But even then, consider drugs. Just because being drunk makes you unable to maintain self-control doesn't mean that your actions are now alcohol's fault in general. It means it was your fault for abusing of the stuff in the first place, knowing what it would do to you. Porn's the same way. If you're not going to be able to maintain self-control if you're around porn, then it is your duty to avoid it; if you do not, you'll still be liable for whatever you wind up doing.

And hurting society? Laws shouldn't attempt to maintain the society however it was 'before'. Laws don't get re-approved at each generation, at each person being born. We are what we are. Over the course of human history, have our societies changed for the worse so much we have a clear example of it? The world's always going to hell in a handbasket, yet we never really seem to get any worse. If you read, say, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, you'll see his society was pretty much exactly like ours, no worse, no better. Do we need our laws to try to prevent natural, small shifts in every-day morality? It won't do any good. A few generations later, someone will get up the courage to change the laws, and your efforts will be for naught. You can make change more painful, but you can't prevent it. So should we try to mold our society, our culture, through law? No. We can, at any point in time, attempt to punish our citizens for harming each other, and that's about it.

Re:This Will Be Appealled

[dustmite]

* A 1987 study found that women who were battered, or subject to sexual aggression or humiliation, had partners who viewed significantly more pornography than those of a control group drawn from a mature university population. (3)

Repeat after me 100 times: "Correlation is not equal to causation." Please demonstrate that viewing pornography was the cause of increased sexual aggression. It's just as easy to argue, and is seemingly more likely, that people who are already "sexually aggressive" are more likely to watch porn than those who aren't. Or there may be other factors involved. The existence of a correlation does not allow conclusions to be drawn.

* A 1995 meta-analysis found that violent pornography might reinforce aggressive behavior and negative attitudes toward women. (4)

That's VIOLENT pornography. Other existing psychological studies have also demonstrated that viewing images/movies of violence (without porn involved) increase aggressive behaviour. So really your problem here may have nothing to do with the "pornography" component and everything to do with the "violence" component. Could you please separate the two (hint about "science": you should try only test one thing at a time, unless you have an ideology you want to falsely reinforce by incorrectly linking A to undesirable B), and demonstrate that non-violent pornography causes an increase in aggressive behaviour? It could VERY WELL be that non-violent pornography has no effect at all on aggression rates, and that the real culprit here that causes "harm to society" is images of violence.

* A US study of teenagers exposed to "Hard core" pornography, "Two-thirds of the males and 40% of the females reported wanting to try out some of the behaviors they had witnessed. And, 31% of males and 18% of the females admitted doing some of the things sexually they had seen in the pornography within a few days after exposure." (5)

So? I fail to see the harm demonstrated. It's also true that watching advertisements depicting people eating ice-cream increases the amount of ice-cream eating behaviour, 'your next assignment is to prove that ice-cream eating is harmful'.

* A 1987 "panel of clinicians and researchers concluded that pornography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and for society, and that these outcomes impair the mental, emotional, and physical health of children and adults." (6)

This sounds a little vague, there is not much information here. I know many well-adjusted people who have viewed a lot of pornography, if pornography is harmful why are the vast majority of people immune to these harmful effects?

* A 1993 study found, "Exposure to sexually stimulating materials may elicit aggressive behavior in youth who are predisposed to aggression. Sexually violent and degrading material elicits greater rates of aggression and may negatively affect male attitudes toward women." (7)

Again, images of violence are already known to increase aggression: please separate the "effects of images of violence" from "effects of images of naked women". Also, not all pornography depicts women being degraded ... perhaps the cause of the problem here is not porn, but depictions of women being degraded? Is it possible that showing non-pornographic films of women being degraded also encourages more negative attitudes towards women? OF COURSE IT IS. You still haven't demonstrated that pornography is the cause.

* A 1984 evaluation of the increase in rape rates in various countries bears close correlation to liberalizing of restrictions on pornography. (8)

Correlation .. YAWN .. that means nothing. Demonstrate causality, please.

* Three separate studies demonstrate that exposure to violent pornography may increase males' laboratory aggression toward women. (9,10,11)

Again, this could have everything to do with images of violence and nothing to do with nakedness.

Re:I'm with you here.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about sexual repression. It's about maintaining a culture by force when it wants to change.

Re:I'm with you here.

[Martin Blank]

Thank you for making this point. There are some societal rules which the state should take an interest in enforcing, and among these is the prohibition of children being involved in certain activities, such as pornography. At this point, the vast majority of people consider child pornography to be wrong, and I doubt this is changing anytime soon. There is a need for certain limited restrictions on what may be viewed by people. The difficult part comes in drawing the appropriate line.

Re:I'm with you here.

[meringuoid]

It is if it causes you to be incapable of preventing yourself from taking an action that harms others.

One might argue that this is also the case with obscene literature. Pornography turns ordinary pious citizens into perverted rapists, after all, just like marijuana turns well-behaved youngsters into Satan-worshipping anti-war deviants.

Me like

[trezor]

I like how you put Satan-worshippping and anti-war in the same stereotype. But I guess your target audience won't even notice the irony.

Re:Yay for free speech...

[neurojab]

>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.

Re:Yay for free speech...

[Scrameustache]

1. Can't steal because it's amoral.
   
2. Can't murder because it's amoral.
   
3. Can't have sex with children because it's amoral.
   
4. Can't attack people on the street because it's amoral.

Actually, only #3 is a question of morality. The rest is a question of fear. People make these laws so they won't have their stuff stolen, be murdered, or be attacked in the street.

Pretty much every state in history that has had laws had these 3. The child abuse thing is a relative question of morality (not condoning it, just saying that it hasn't been universally decried).

Re:Yay for free speech...

[BrookHarty]

Virtually all criminal law is the legislation of someone's morality.

Whoa! I'll have to call bullshit on that.

The laws you listed are person on person crime. Laws that ban what you read/watch/think/listen/smoke/drink/sex/etc with, are morality laws. Regulation are for protective purposes only, mercury in fish, smoking, drinking, etc.

Of course, you can over regulate too, my state does this on Alchol, the Washington state runs the liqour stores, and places a higher sin tax on a limited selection. We keep trying to get through our state congress to privatize stores, so people can have more choices, and more locations. And of course make more taxes. But the common excuse to keep the state monopoly, "For the children, kids will have easier access", which is a utter lie.

Lucky Costco and a few others are sueing, as they have to buy from higher expensive state ran middlemen. Get the state out of business.

I guess thats conservative on business, and liberal on morals. Guess you can be both. ;)

Re:Strange

[hunterx11]

Then what is?

Upholding people's rights. Rights may be moral principles, but not all moral principles are rights.

Oh yes, exactly

[revscat]

A court has acted to limit the powers of government. The government has one job, and one only-ensuring that nobody's person or property is harmed without their consent.

That would be attractive if it weren't so brain-dead stupid.

Hint: If your political philosophy can fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't reflect the real world. Libertarianism is nice and utopian and all, but it's also more of a religion than a successful political ideology.

Re:I'm with you here.

[monkease]

Well, I am minister of the Born Again Church of the Foundation Crusade, and truly I tell you: I'm a total sexually-repressed hypocrite.

;p

Re:I'm with you here.

[meringuoid]

Making it should probably be illegal in most cases(depending on lots of factors), but watching it should not be. And the same should hold true for snuff films. The murder is the illegal part not recording the murder. The whole idea of the watching a videotape of a crime being illegal just seems wrong to me.

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.

This is huge, really important

[Julian Morrison]

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.

Re:I'm with you here.

[Thangodin]

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.

Re:I'm with you here.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm with you here.

[MightyMartian]

> 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.

Morality? What morality?

[Quattro Vezina]

There is nothing Immoral about anything consenting adults do with each other or anything a person does alone in their own home, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

I applaud this decision, but it really pisses me off when banning pornography is referred to as ``legislating morality''. It's not about Morality, it's about a group of Taliban-wannabes who want to control the private lives of Americans.

In fact, all just laws are based on Morality. Laws against murder, rape, assault, burglary, etc. are all based on Morality. Laws banning pornography, regulating so-called decency, banning drug use, establishing patents, etc. are not based on Morality. In fact, the latter category of laws are all highly Immoral.

Bullshit

[Quattro Vezina]

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.

Re:More discrimination against Christians

[randallpowell]

Well, it says that we live in a nation of freedom. Freedom for me to be a Buddhist, freedom to say you live in the Dark Ages, freedom to NOT watch porn if I so choose, and freedom for all to do the same or different.

Your 10 Commandants are nice and all but why must they be in a courthouse lawn? Why must Nativity scenes be in the same location? Seems to me, since the 90's, Christians got scared as people turned from Christianity for Wicca, Buddhism, atheism, etc and sought freedom to live their lives. If you want your rules posted somewhere, put it in your house. Just remember that we have freedoms and any diviation from that results in an American version of the Taliban which would mean fundie Christians are no diffeent than fundie Muslims.

One-dimensional thinking

[gidds]

Sounds like the old problem of oversimplistic labelling. Most people still try to fit all political thinking into a one-dimensional mental map, with 'left' (meaning anything from communist to liberal) on one side, and 'right' (meaning anything from small-c conservative to fascist) on the other.

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.

Re:Mans law?

[randallpowell]

Why do Christians asume that non-Christians can't be moral? Why is it that Christians claim to have the truth yet it doesn't help them relieve suffering? If Christians are really following the teachings of Jesus, why is there hate coming from Christians to others? Why is the rise of other religions seen as a threat when these other religions set people free and allow them to live life more and openly? Why do Christians assume that non-Christians would support anything Christians disagree with? Why do CHristians yell persecution when others are using the freedom of religion?

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.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence...

[katharsis83]

"Having the ten commandments in front of the courthouse is a government endorsement of christianity. Not having the ten commandments in front of the courthouse is not an endosement of athiesm."

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, my friend. Or in this cause, absence of the 10 Commandments is not proof that an opposing view is being endorsed.

The lack of ANY religious monument in front of a courthouse means the government is not condoning ANY belief; if we followed your argument, then not having the 10 Commandments present would mean the government is endorsing atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto-ism, etc... But it's not. Not having a plaque of the 10 Commandments in front of the building just means the government is actually following the establishment clause of the Constitution.

How pissed would YOU be if we had a scripture from the Korean or Torah in front of a courthouse? How pissed would YOU be if before every court-session, the presiding Judge recited a passage from the Koran?

Think about that; now why is it suddenly ok if we replaced the word "Koran" with the word "Bible" in the preceding sentence?

There are hypocrites, and there are hypocrites.

[CustomDesigned]

The first kind sincerely believe that certain behaviours are good or bad, but personally find it extremely difficult to muster the willpower to live up to their own standard - and frequently fail. An example would be the doctor who is a chain smoker - but takes care not to smoke in the examining room, and can show you no end of pictures and statistics proving just how bad smoking is for your health.

The second kind of hypocrite does not actually believe his own propaganda, but merely uses it to manipulate others to his advantage. An example would be the Communist Party bosses in the old Sovient Union who would preach austerity and economic independence from the West by day, but buy Western luxuries in secret Party shops by night.

The Christian Church has always been full of the first type of hypocrite - and openly so. "I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance," said Jesus, and a modern bumper sticker says, "Please be patient, God is not finished with me yet."

Just as you should pay attention to the doctors advice about the dangers of smoking - even though the doctor fails miserably at taking his own advice, so you should take seriously warnings about the dangers of pornography - even if the preacher fails to take his own advice.

Perhaps you suspect that TV preachers are the second kind of hypocrite - not actually believing what they preach, but cynically manipulating their audience to keep sending in those donations. For the majority of TV preachers, I would agree with you. Even then, however, to the extent that they accurately portray the message they claim to represent, you should take the message seriously. As Paul said, "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely ... What then? not withstanding, ..., whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice."

Unfortunately, while scientific measurements may be getting more accurate, the accuracy of mass media preachers resembles the accuracy of marketroids at a tech company. They tend to modify their message to tickle the ears of the target audience. To see what a given Church teaches, take a Church document with some history behind it, ignoring recent "innovations", and then compare it with the sources (the Bible and history).

Re:I'm with you here.

[onepoint]

here is a link that talks about the court case ( it starts talking about it in the middle )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1 56 44-2004Dec21.html

Onepoint

Best news I've heard all day. :)

[nvrrobx]

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...

Re:I'm with you here.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

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:

I still don't think you guys have figured it out. It isn't guilt, it is an exchange of control, a surrender... an expression of complete trust in the other.

Well, IMO at least...

Re:Bah, pay attention to religions...

[Jim_Callahan]

... if you're going to bash them. Christianity doesn't care if you're "free" or "open" with or in your life. It is concerned with following the person and (to a lesser extent, it seems) the teachings of the christ. Other religions threaten this because most of them are mutually exclusive in some manner with christianity, and thus damn the souls of their followers. Why Christianity particularly cares about souls, I have yet to determine. In any case, because following Christ is the only way to become closer to god after death, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever when a christian is concerned with persecution of christians and doesn't give a damn about the persecution of other religions. And their truth isn't supposed to relieve physical suffering, it's supposed to bring you closer to physical perfection. Note that the center of the religion was nailed to a tree and left to die.

You're probably right about the hatred thing, though. I'm pretty sure the manual pretty much forbids that nonsense.

Did I miss anything? Oh, right. Forgot to mention that nobody gave a damn wether or not Jesus showed up in 2001. Christians are nervous because they aren't the major moral force in american society anymore, and they haven't figured out what is yet.

Congrats

[Leolo]

Congratulations! You have completely failed to understand BDSM. Here's a link to enlighten you. The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm FAQ List

Re:Who says the culture wants to change?

[Alsee]

normalization of sexual attitudes and activities previously considered vulgar and obscene, and thus repressed or even banned outright by law.

That paragraph just screamed "interracial marriage" at me, and theme carries pretty well through your entire post. Did you know that as recently as 1967 (quite possibly during your lifetime) some one-third of all states had laws against interracial marriage? In several cases going so far as making it a criminal offense with up to 10 years in prison?

And of course you can easily complain about all sorts of ways society has gone to hell since the laws against interracial marriage were struck down.

And in case you missed the obvious, there is absolutely no constitutional difference between prohibiting interracial marriage and prohibiting gay marriage. Legally they are both attempts to discriminate which applicants are permitted to marry. Of course there are perfectly legal grounds for discriminating some acceptable applicants from other unacceptable applicants, such as that they have to be 2 humans capable of consent. However any attempt for the law to discriminate between applicants on the basis of race, gender, or religion is unconstitutional. Either the individual clause restricting applicants on that basis is null and void and all otherwise qualified applicants must be accepted, or if such single-clause-stickdown is not possible then the entire law granting any marriages at all would be invaild. No one would be able to legally marry in that state.

Oh, and I really love how you try to blame AIDS on "the newly open culture of male gay sex". First of all there would be no difference whether the culture was "open" or hidden in the closet. Secondly even if there were no gays at all it wouldn't have made much difference. Sure AIDS got a faster start in the gay community, but that also resulted in earlier detection and response. The vast majority of the spread of AIDS is from non-gay populations. We'd have almost the exact same "epidemic".

If you really want a health-based crusade you really should be declaring that hand-shaking is immoral. That results in more spread of more diseases than anything else.

But civilizations also have an interest in repressing at least the most extremes of the forbidden, for society's own good. And THAT is why we still have obscenity laws.

No, there is no legitimate use of government force for the sole purpose that some people dislike something. The primary legitimate purpose for law and the use of government force is in preventing one person from violating another person's rights, and responding to such violations when they occur. Sure there are other valid purposes for law, running a military and estabishing an economy and infrastructure, yada yada yada. But what we are talking about here is creating criminal law without any actual underlying crime against anyone's rights. You do not have a rigght not to be offended. If you don't want to be promiscuous, fine, don't be promiscuous. You don't want to buy porn, fine, don't buy porn. You don't want gay marriage "imposed on you", fine, don't enter a gay marriage.

There is certainly a legitimate government purpose in a law against violating someone's right not to be shot in the head. That is not a morality-law. That is a violatrion of someone's rights and it is a crime. As the court ruled, public morality is not a legitimate state interest to criminalize things that merely offend public's sense of morality.

You can't force people into heaven by holding a gun to their head. People are perfectly free to choose to go to hell. If someone is being "immoral", but he is not voilating any of your rights, then you have no buiness pulling out a gun and forcibly imprisoning him for it.

obscenity laws. Now, if you disagree with them, then work to change that. BUT...simply bitching about the laws won't accomplish anything.

In case you hadn't noticed this entire story is about changing the law by ha