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.'"
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.
That pictures of women who are not covered top to toe are considered porn.
I am sure thare are some communities of strict muslims in the US.
As a result, all newsstands must be closed down, and all newspapers will have to show pictueres only of men.
Stupidity rulez
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 onus should fall upon the pornographers to keep their content out of Florida's tubes.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Nobody's forcing you to type playboy.com into your computer
Except the people who post links on forums that claim to point somewhere interesting but in fact point to shocking gay porn. OK, maybe you're right, that's not forcing, but it's still coercion because it's fraud.
This is completely insane. Under this standard, Dan Savage could be prosecuted in Arkansas for writing about sex in California. A large percentage of the professional musicians in the US could be prosecuted for their lyrics. Everyone on 4chan could be prosecuted. (There had to be a silver lining somewhere.)
We clearly all forgot that little footnote in the Bill of Rights which says "not a guarantee, void where prohibited by law, some rights sold separately"
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.
one of the problems the type of business I am in has, its illegal to sell certain items in certain locales but adjoining ones can buy them. In some cases its not even legal to ship through (we are talking environmental laws mostly - some protect the local industry laws too)
We used to joke that some locales would have inspectors waiting for the trucks to leave the warehouse, let alone arrive at stores to see if "contraband" was on board. Of course this was all done to raise revenue for the locale. Where it got messy were the same buyers ordering from other distribution centers in hopes of getting around the restriction. My favorite restrictions are where the same product can be sold in a locale for one use but not another. This of course requires signed off paperwork stating the buyer is using it for the legal reasons and we confirmed they are. Trouble is, we have more money so if the buyer does something wrong we usually get fined for selling it.
Never underestimate the ability of government employees to abuse their position to impose their views upon you or bolster their community at the expense of yours
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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?
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.
On my tiny sovereign island nation, it is now prohibited to be wrong on the internet. I expect the court of Atlanta to pay the standard fine within two weeks of this message.
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.
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.
They're so strict they don't even allow proportionally spaced fonts!
Putting moderation advice in your
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.
"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.
Well, here in my parts, we are pretty damned strict about polygamy . . .
. . . so change your monogamous ways, or be sued by me . . .
. . . oh, and yes, my family tree has routing loops . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion?
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
This ruling is actually not the "Great Evil" it's being portrayed as. We've got one Court of Appeals saying the one thing, and another saying the opposite (yes, Courts of Appeal have ruled the reverse several times in history).
Which pretty much guarantees that if the defendant appeals to the Supremes, they'll have to take the case, and come up with a definitive ruling.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Who gets to decide which judges are stupid?
Well, ideally what would happen is that when someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution has been found to violate that Constitution, they'd be removed from their position. Sadly, there's no punishment for violating the so-called "supreme law" of the land.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
For years people have suggested that filtering of porn sights for adults only was a good thing. So I remember in the early days of the web, people mentioned making an extension like the .com, .org, .net, etc... to include .xxx 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. A .xxx extension also would make it much easier for parents to filter content that they don't want their children to see. If I remember correctly, I think I recall even the Porn industry wanting it's own extension.
This then allows those people in those communities to don't want content filtered to be able to then petition their local governments for changes in freedoms.
There are a lot of logistics that would need to be worked out to what should go into a .xxx section of the web, but that would allow the industry to have more openness as they want and parents to have the control they want.
Besides, since you can have access to the internet in the privacy of your own home, an you have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, wouldn't the obscenity laws in Tampa contradict that if obscene porn is your pursuit to happiness?
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
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).
My fiancée IAL who wrote her thesis partially on this issue. This was basically just a riff on a sting operation, which is obviously an extremely common technique for gathering evidence against various flavors of consensual crook (prostitutes, drug dealers, etc). The courts will not reject the technique any time soon, and legislators will never write laws banning the technique because they would hate to seem soft on crime.
Basically, consensual crimes are more expensive to prosecute because no involved party is interested in revealing information that could lead to a conviction. The most effective ways cops and feds have come up with to do so is through intricate surveillance methods (wiretaps, inside informants) and sting ops. The reasoning is that if a person commits a consensual crime with an undercover agent then the person would probably have committed the crime anyway.
Of course, I believe it's stupid to criminalize most of the consensual crimes we hear about (drug dealing, prostitution, (adult) porn creation/consumption), but once you decide that it's illegal, you have to come up with a way to prosecute it.
This leads to some pretty hilarious cop behaviors. Fiancée told me about a sting in which cops leave an old car parked unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighborhood with a bunch of audio recording equipment in the trunk. The minute someone tries to take the car, a cop swings around the corner, arrests the guy and sends him off to jail for grand theft auto.
So in one particular neighborhood they parked their sting car in front of a nice couple's house. Couple called the police multiple times to report the apparently lost vehicle. But the cops didn't want to give away their little ploy, so they just ignored them. After two weeks, the couple decides to go have a look at the car to see if there was an ID or something there. The minute they open the door, the cops pull up from around the corner, arrest both of them, and charge them with attempted grand theft auto.
So by "hilarious" I guess I meant "terrifying".
It already HAS been appealed AND stood up ON APPEAL! It has to go to the Supremes now... And quite frankly, the way they have been ruling makes me wonder lately of their sanity. Just look at the floodgates they opened in political finances...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
This is great news for the Amish legal community. I expect lots of calls to Amish attorneys to try these kinds of cases by the standards of the average Amishman or Mennonite.
Of course, they'll have to get a computer first.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
You'd let anybody have the wonders of perl? You would cast perl's before swine?
(Perl's code, that is)
Free Martian Whores!
Anyone else read that as:
Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obesity Standards?