Forum - View topic

NEWS: Lawyer Indicates Manga in Iowa Obscenity Case are Yaoi

soubilover3 wrote:

Why is it a taboo to draw the...(hint hint, im at school, can't spell it out but im sure you all know what im talking about...) "hair" on a man, in Japan?

Commercial taboo maybe - because it's ugly. Remember yaoi is written to appeal to women - can't have hairy legs, etc all over the place after all

CCS:

Quote:

There is the perception among Christians that gay men are sex fiends who want to seduce your innocent son over to their decadent lifestyle.

But if they're straight Catholic priests who end up molesting, because they're not allowed to marry, then it's fine and dandy. Or if those boys happen to be Arab and/or Muslim detainees in the War on Terror, and they're sodomized, then we're doing Jesus' work.

Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state’s arguments that there is “a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children.”

The state presented experts who claimed there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gay couples, that they were more unstable than heterosexual unions and that the children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma.

So, the government was re-organized under the newly-written Constitution of the United States of America. Under this system, the states retained many powers, but they applied only to what happened exclusively within their borders. Anything that took place in more than one state, or involving the world outside American borders, was officially the domain of the federal government. This included interstate commerce. In the example you gave, the material is legal in state A, but that doesn't matter once it enters state B, because state A has no jurisdiction or authority in state B. State B has a similar problem- it has authority only over what happens within state B, nothing over state A. So the transaction itself winds up in a legal limbo, where no one has authority. And since someone HAS to enforce commerce regulations, the job falls to the Federal government, which is above the individual states in the chain of command.

If that seems silly, imagine if we were talking about fugitives instead of products. If you were wanted in State A for a bank robbery, and there were no federal authority, all you'd have to do to escape the law is evade the authorities long enough to make it to another state, after which there was nothing they could do. State B can't arrest you because you've done nothing wrong on their turf, and State A can't arrest you because they have no authority to come on to State B's grounds. And indeed this was exploited quite a bit during the days of the Wild West, when the federal government didn't have the money, the logistics, or in some cases the desire to help enforce state laws.

And because the Federal Government is the only one that can reasonably enforce these regulations, they pretty much get to make the regulations. Which means that federal politics, especially in the days of mail-order and internet commerce, matters a lot more in terms of what is and is not legal to ship than the politics of any particular state, even those to which the material is shipped.

BellosTheMighty wrote:

So, the government was re-organized under the newly-written Constitution of the United States of America. Under this system, the states retained many powers, but they applied only to what happened exclusively within their borders. Anything that took place in more than one state, or involving the world outside American borders, was officially the domain of the federal government. This included interstate commerce. In the example you gave, the material is legal in state A, but that doesn't matter once it enters state B, because state A has no jurisdiction or authority in state B. State B has a similar problem- it has authority only over what happens within state B, nothing over state A. So the transaction itself winds up in a legal limbo, where no one has authority. And since someone HAS to enforce commerce regulations, the job falls to the Federal government, which is above the individual states in the chain of command. If that seems silly, imagine if we were talking about fugitives instead of products. If you were wanted in State A for a bank robbery, and there were no federal authority, all you'd have to do to escape the law is evade the authorities long enough to make it to another state, after which there was nothing they could do. State B can't arrest you because you've done nothing wrong on their turf, and State A can't arrest you because they have no authority to come on to State B's grounds. And indeed this was exploited quite a bit during the days of the Wild West, when the federal government didn't have the money, the logistics, or in some cases the desire to help enforce state laws. And because the Federal Government is the only one that can reasonably enforce these regulations, they pretty much get to make the regulations. Which means that federal politics, especially in the days of mail-order and internet commerce, matters a lot more in terms of what is and is not legal to ship than the politics of any particular state, even those to which the material is shipped.

I don't think the issue was the sovereignty of states as much as the loophole that say Playboy is legal to possess in State A & State B, but taking it across the border isn't.

Well it's not really a loophole, you see. If it involves more than one state, it comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government automatically, and at that point the states can't do a single thing about it, because the federal government is a higher authority. To put it another way, the laws of a state can only apply to that state. You can't apply the laws of one state to what goes on in another, so the federal government has to step in. And since the federal government is a higher authority than the states, it can completely ignore what the states have to say in the matter once they have jurisdiction, and they usually do.

It's not Iowa obscenity laws, it's what the jury finds to be obscene and the jury will be taken from Iowa.

District courts are federal.

Navak wrote:

It's not Iowa obscenity laws, it's what the jury finds to be obscene and the jury will be taken from Iowa. District courts are federal.

But it's the "community" standard that is being applied so it refers back to Iowan law for site standard for the case.

I think she understands that much, but the argument is not about the federal government's jurisdiction when two states are at odds over a law, but when they are in agreement. I'm pretty sure she meant that the government is using the "interstate commerce" jurisdiction as a tool by which they can usurp the authority of individual states, regardless of whether any of the states involved in an interstate commerce transaction are in agreement or not.

But it's the "community" standard that is being applied so it refers back to Iowan law for site standard for the case.

Cait wrote:

I think she understands that much, but the argument is not about the federal government's jurisdiction when two states are at odds over a law, but when they are in agreement. I'm pretty sure she meant that the government is using the "interstate commerce" jurisdiction as a tool by which they can usurp the authority of individual states, regardless of whether any of the states involved in an interstate commerce transaction are in agreement or not.

Yeah.
I probably should have said "seeming loophole" because the feds are doing what they are legally allowed to do. It seems stupid & a waste of money if said item IS legal in both states, but technically they can do it because they have that power

hikaru004 wrote:

Navak wrote: It's not Iowa obscenity laws, it's what the jury finds to be obscene and the jury will be taken from Iowa. District courts are federal. But it's the "community" standard that is being applied so it refers back to Iowan law for site standard for the case.

No, it doesn't.

Your argument would seem to state that the state law is indicative of the community standard as a whole, even though the state laws of Iowa are not voted on by the community but by representatives of that community.

So you would be assuming that a plurality vote of say, 30-40% sometimes more, to elect an official would be indicative of the community standards as a whole.

That isn't how it works, it draws upon a jury. They might look at state law as an indicator before going to trial but Iowa state law only goes after purchasers of child pornography. As far as I can tell, when state law mentions depictions, it is of a real child.

For every other case you have to be a seller/distributor/exhibitor of the "obscene" materials.

Community standards are reflected in their laws.

The defense’s best chance is to convince the jury that the manga passes the last of the three-pronged Miller test. But this is an uphill battle, as the jury is asked to decide (in the third portion of the test) whether the work has “serious artistic value,” instead of whether the work was a “serious artistic endeavor.” The spirit of the law really asks for the latter - serious artistic endeavors still routinely produce bad art that nevertheless deserve protection, unfortunately that’s not how the standard is worded. And obscenity laws have a built-in catch 22: if a jury finds the material not obscene, they are in effect saying that the material is regularly consumed in their community… at least, that’s what the prosecution would lead the jury to believe. Now, how many people who own porn would admit that to, say, a prospective employer? Their friends and relatives? In a court of law? The fear and embarrassment factor is so great, juries often completely disregard expert testimony.

They prob went with going for the charge that they can easily jail him under the PROTECT Act and bring the most publicity/jail time since this is a test case. Also, according to Icarus,

Icarus Publishing wrote:

The defense’s best chance is to convince the jury that the manga passes the last of the three-pronged Miller test. But this is an uphill battle, as the jury is asked to decide (in the third portion of the test) whether the work has “serious artistic value,” instead of whether the work was a “serious artistic endeavor.” The spirit of the law really asks for the latter - serious artistic endeavors still routinely produce bad art that nevertheless deserve protection, unfortunately that’s not how the standard is worded. And obscenity laws have a built-in catch 22: if a jury finds the material not obscene, they are in effect saying that the material is regularly consumed in their community… at least, that’s what the prosecution would lead the jury to believe. Now, how many people who own porn would admit that to, say, a prospective employer? Their friends and relatives? In a court of law? The fear and embarrassment factor is so great, juries often completely disregard expert testimony.

The maximum penalty is 20 years for this apparently.

They prob went with going for the charge that they can easily jail him under the PROTECT Act and bring the most publicity/jail time since this is a test case. Also, according to Icarus,

Icarus Publishing wrote:

The defense’s best chance is to convince the jury that the manga passes the last of the three-pronged Miller test. But this is an uphill battle, as the jury is asked to decide (in the third portion of the test) whether the work has “serious artistic value,” instead of whether the work was a “serious artistic endeavor.” The spirit of the law really asks for the latter - serious artistic endeavors still routinely produce bad art that nevertheless deserve protection, unfortunately that’s not how the standard is worded. And obscenity laws have a built-in catch 22: if a jury finds the material not obscene, they are in effect saying that the material is regularly consumed in their community… at least, that’s what the prosecution would lead the jury to believe. Now, how many people who own porn would admit that to, say, a prospective employer? Their friends and relatives? In a court of law? The fear and embarrassment factor is so great, juries often completely disregard expert testimony.

The maximum penalty is 20 years for this apparently.

The maximum penalty is 20 years for this apparently. Jurys only determine guilt, or innocence, they don't set the sentence. The judge does that, and he/she doesn't have to sentence him to the full 20, or even any time incarceration. Judge could just fine him and order him to sign the sex offenders register to keep him on the books.