Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obscenity Standards
dark_requiem writes "The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it. The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little, aka Max Hardcore, for violating obscenity laws in Tampa, despite the fact that the 'obscene' material in question was produced and sold in California. From the article: 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities. In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime. ... Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole — the Middle District of Florida" — would view the material.'"
...in the Land of The Free, corporations have a right to free speech so your constitution does not apply to you anymore, only to whom will financially benefit from that.
Smile, don't click...
So by that measure we should censor all pictures of women's faces as it violates the decency standards of Iran.
We just need to file a lawsuit in Fascistville, Texas to have the whole internet taken down for obscenity.
Trust me, I'm a Texan--we've got plenty of towns that would do.
expandfairuse.org
This has to be, without a doubt, the worst decision I have ever heard a court involving the internet. It shows a blatant disregard for how internet works.
The Appeals Court dropped the ball on this one. If a crime was committed in that backwoods locale, it should be the person who viewed the porn who is charged, because they're the ones who took the active step of bringing it 'into' the jurisdiction. Yeah, it's some pretty foul porn, by most standards, but it was the police who ordered the damn things and downloaded them, not some otherwise innocent person. Frankly, it's a mockery of the law to charge him with crimes in that jurisdiction.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Yay. Time for this to be ruled by the scotus. They've been pretty clear on "community standards" and it's about time the internet was defined as "a community." SCOTUS did not say obscenity is defined by the most prudish members of the community. You can't simply pick the 13 most uptight pricks in town for your jury. It's time for people to be given full responsibility for the speech that is tolerated in their own homes and not the freedom to rule everyone else's homes based on the redneck perversions of that backward few.
Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.
Emphasis mine.
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
If they had of not actively done this, then no crime would have been committed.
(Of course IANAL etc).
Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland, but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.
How can people know what's legal/illegal in each and every bacwater community across a country as large as the US?
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Perfect! Now we can have some GNU/Linux fans form a community, declare all proprietary software obscene and shut down sites of Microsoft, Apple and so on! Wow, and I thought that I'll never see "A Year of Linux on Desktop"!
What do you think, will RMS look good in black amish hat?
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
This ruling is entirely unreasonable for two reasons:
(1) This effectively extends the jurisdiction of an community law to the entire country
(2) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every community
I don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable. It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country. I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.
Tar and feathering of stupid judges.
This will almost certainly be overturned but this court had to force the waste of millions of dollars anyway.
Corporatism != Free Market
Frankly, it isn't the first time the USoA has dragged someone from somewhere else (like, oh, another country on a different continent), and tried and convicted them for ``crimes'' that might be arguable at best under any applicable law, or not even committed near the North American continent, or both. So the country, so the county. If you'd like this changed, don't stop at the county level, fix the country too. People the world over will thank you.
The real result is that geolocation filters will become more prevalent, with content providers making it so their website are only viewable from the states/countries they intend to market their stuff to (and wherfe they know their content isn't illegal).
It's highly annoying. It's already pretty enraging when you come across a website that pretty much tells you "fuck you, this content can only be viewed from the usa".
I have to wonder if the 11th would have been so quick to insist that the strictest local community standards apply in every case if non-pornographic material was involved. Hypothetical case in point:
1) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring particularly inflammatory anti-abortion speech as "obscene", "inciting to riot", etc.
2) Arrest warrants are immediately issued throughout the south-eastern US for various high profile clergymen (e.g. Pat Robertson), and other pro-life firebrands as various pieces of inflammatory pro-life literature (e.g. videotapes) are purchased and received by members of the local police.
3) Said individuals are arrested, extradited to California, tried, convicted, sentenced, and begin their prison sentences.
4) During this time, they appeal their sentences through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the members of the 11th Court suddenly "switched team jerseys" and were sitting on the bench of the 9th Circuit court, would they uphold these convictions?
Using the reasoning they applied against Mr. Little (the defendant), they would. However, if you believe that these same judges would actually choose to follow this reasoning, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Normally, I would expect that the Supreme Court would (eventually) backhand the 11th for such an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment, but given the recent much-broader-than-necessary ruling on campaign finance reform, I suspect that they'll find a way not to.
What makes you think, you got any power at all to rule over the Internet?
Well the fact that Max Hardcore is behind bars should be your first clue.
I don't agree with the court ruling, but they certainly have the power - and are (ab)using it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene then all photos etc. on the internet not showing a burka should be considered pornographic. I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.
That pictures of women who are not covered top to toe are considered porn.
You had better not be making any drawings (Canada, Australia) of uncovered women, too. And make sure (Australia) that their breasts are very large. Or you are a "sex offender". How about we go and cover up all those naked people in paintings and chisel the genitals from sculptures, while we're at it?
I myself find myself offended by a particular Dutch painter called Rembrandt. What a pervert. All the nudes he ever painted should be destroyed, and his "collectors" and any of his surviving kin thrown in jail.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There goes another huge waste of our tax dollars. Now that we have had an expensive witch hunt we get the thrill of paying huge money to lock these guys up for no reason at all.
And just why should the most conservative county get to hold power over all of us. How about letting the most l;iberal county declare when something is pornographic in nature?
And I live near the center of Florida and nothing at all is offensive to me porn wise. So these judges are not representing the people at all. They are catering to the lowest element of dried up dullards. Sometimes I understand the loonies who go off and gun down people at random. It's because of nonsense like this courts rulings.
So does this make it illegal for alcoholic beverage ads to be broadcast in dry counties?
Who gets to decide which judges are stupid?
Not that I disagree on -this- decision being 'stupid' (on the face of it, I haven't read the judge's motivations and whatnot), but I can't help but disagree with your idea there.
If I simply disagree with a judge, deeming them 'stupid', does that mean I should be allowed (at least in the eye of the public) to tar and feather them?
Wouldn't that undermine one of the principles - however much they're ignored - of a legal system? If every judge making a decision would have to fear being tarred and feathered just because *somebody* may disagree with the decision, wouldn't that be a Bad Thing(TM)?
Porn sites in the US will smell the java and move abroad, then sell their services from there (and pay tax there). Some bum on Aruba beach will become the figurehead CEO and business continues as usual. Case closed.
What? What else do you expect the result of this will be? That these "indecent" and "obscene" pages cease to exist?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The setting of this precedent means that any grouping of people can hold anything they find objectionable on the internet hostage. This means that Google can hold Microsoft Hostage, Microsoft can object to Apple's ads and bearded Linux ogres can object to Bill Gates taking a bath more than once a month.
Surely I can find a place where anything is illegal. How did these judges get into office again?
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
The ruling will probably be struck down on interstate commerce grounds.
How does that work for non-pr0n sites where some or all of content might still be deemed "adult"?
How does that work for user-generated sites with a range of material under a single domain?
which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions
And there is one problem - you still have a situation where things are censored. It may be on a more local level, but at the same time, this system makes it an awful lot easier for things to be blocked, even if the end user doesn't want that.