Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Obscenity Rule Nixed In Internet Porn Case

Posted by timothy on from the this-sounds-ripe-for-ussc dept.

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.'"

13 of 832 comments (clear)

  1. Paul Graham Essay by vladd_rom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  2. good reasons by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    1. Re:good reasons by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Re:about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest...

    it's about fucking time!

    Exactly!

  4. More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:More Information from Pittsburgh Sources... by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

      --
      @de_machina
  5. Dangers in aggregation of power to the feds.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Pr0n always leading the way... by HeghmoH · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Get you laid.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  7. The difference by Monx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  8. Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ... by tmbg37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This comment was thought up very late at night and does not necessarily reflect my views at a more reasonable hour.
  9. Re:You cannot legislate anything but morality ... by wjeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
  10. Re:about time by snooo53 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    --
    The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
  11. Re:I'm with you here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.