Forum - View topicNEWS: FL Court: Online Content Held to Distant Community Standards
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
|
Am I correct to assume it has to be a "sale" for these obscenity laws to apply? And I wish the supreme court would just junk this bs anyways. How does this not conflict with the freedom of speech? Any speech that you don't like could be tagged as obscene. It's total horse shit.
|
||||
|
samuelp
Industry Insider
Posts: 2232 Location: San Antonio, USA |
|
|||
|
Pardon me if I am not that outraged, but wouldn't simply adding a line to the Terms of Service agreement to the download of any material that reads:
"If the downloading or possession of this content violates any local laws in the area in which you live, this site does not permit you to download or view it" or something to that effect? That would seem to indemnify anyone distributing something on the internet, because no court is going to rule that someone has to actively know all local law of every community in the entire US just to sell something online. |
||||
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
|
Yeah, but there has to be a sale though right? To be convicted on this doesn't it have to take place in "interstate commerce" meaning money changed hands?
|
||||
MagusGuardian
 Posts: 590 |
|
|||
|
thus the obscenity laws are put to pointless use once more, the major problem I see with these "obscenity" laws is that everyone and their damn dog have a different point of view on what is or isn't obscene so basically everyone and anyone could have the right to sue or incarcerate anyone that rubs them the wrong way. if these laws continue to invade peoples day to day jobs and lives both public and private then we're all screwed. also I'd like to agree with J-syxx this is total BS
|
||||
|
||||
|
bayoab
Posts: 831 |
|
|||
Also, people should read the TBO article for additional info as this ruling actually contradicts a previous court ruling. |
||||
|
||||
teh*darkness
 Posts: 901 |
|
|||
Actually, Elfen Lied wouldn't become illegal. It would simply mean that anywhere it was considered "obscene," any site or business that sold it would have to not allow customers from those areas to buy the product. While this seems somewhat logical, it would put an amazingly stupid strain on the workers of those businesses, to have to effectively censor areas of the country from being allowed to buy certain products. Though I will agree, this is really bad precedent, if it gets upheld. |
||||
|
||||
|
ittoujuu
Posts: 164 Location: SoCal |
|
|||
|
On the internet, it's problematic to restrict content access to certain groups. If a brick-and-mortar store sold an item that was considered "obscene" in another region, it took a buyer to bring it into that region. Even simple logic suggests that a person selling an item in an area where it is not obscene shouldn't be held accountable for that item getting into a place where it would be considered obscene.
Though, the most problematic aspect of this ruling is the idea that, if literally applied, the entire internet would be at the mercy of the obscenity standards of the most conservative-minded area(s) of the U.S. in which people have internet access. A ruling like this flies in the face of the internet as a global network. People can't police the shit they post up to sanitize it for every region. They just can't. Nor should they have to. If someone is looking at something on the internet that is not illegal, that's their business; we don't need hungry lawyers having ISPs sniff through peoples' packets to find more witches to hunt via specific communities' "obscenity standards." |
||||
|
||||
hikaru004
 Posts: 2306 |
|
|||
|
It means to me that whatever is being posted online can't go beyond a certain acceptable rating. Internet sanitization is starting.
|
||||
|
||||
ayashe
 Posts: 122 |
|
|||
|
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. This is moving in the territory of the idiotic Australian laws. Who does that court think they are? Now they're making laws for the whole country. We're not going to have any rights anymore. Soon the United States is going to be ruled by random laws made by dictator courts. Where's the Joker when you need him.
|
||||
|
||||
|
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||
|
Just remember, we all live in Middle District Tampa Florida now whenever you post content.
Because if there's another case, I'm betting it's going to be tried there. |
||||
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
|
Can anyone please address my previously asked question about the interstate "commerce" aspect of this? I mean if I post say hentai doujin with fellatio for free somewhere (some communities consider semen "obscene"), could you possibly be charged with this ridiculous obscenity law or would you have to physically sell it for 20 dollars to some guy living in said community? Does anyone who knows what their talking about know the answer to this?
|
||||
|
Annf
Posts: 578 |
|
|||
Dwight Whorley was charged for sending private emails containing "obscene" text. The situation is more ridiculous than that, though: # U.S. v. Mees http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/CDR/CDR--200906.htm#case4 No. 4:09CR00145 ERW (E.D. Mo., June 10, 2009)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shale
Posts: 337 Location: The Middle of Nowhere, DE |
|
|||
|
The interstate commerce clause as a means to limit the scope of federal jurisdiction, rather than as a means to make it as unlimited as possible, has been dead for decades.
|
||||
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
|
^ Well regardless, I found this tidbit on it that contradicts that to a certain extent (at least in this case):
So it seems I was correct in my assumption about this case, and it's similar to the Iowa case in that regard that it was about ordering product to be shipped to your house. So I guess the biggest lesson here is don't order porno to mailed to you until the supreme court settles this bullshit. Although, I agree the silperly slope you mentioned above is possible. |
||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||
Then you're violating the right of that adult to view content that's legal to the eyes of other adults. Discrimination. I've seen sites "warning" one if one is offended by XXX, XXX, or XXX, do not view these pictures which is a total ad enticing the viewer.
I don't actually know the legality, but I'm suspecting it has to do with them proving it crossing state lines so that they can prosecute someone in another state. For all the talk of being "Americans", each state is separate & sovereign. I work with convicted felons who are flabbergasted they cannot just move to another state, but the problem is they are undesirables while they are being actively supervised in the state where the felony was convicted so the receiving state has the right to refuse the felon to reside in their state. I've heard of a few spats between judges here & other states because most states are pretty fierce about defending their power (State A isn't telling State B what to do). In that same light, this is a major civil war waiting to happen. At some point, a line will have to be drawn over sucking what is deemed to be a law-abiding citizen of one state into another state's jails, eliminating that productive citizen's ability to pay taxes to the home state. Granted, right now the whole idea of paying taxes for online sales is in flux, so this might also lead to better policing of internet sales so that states can better profit from online sales, but most internet users aren't wanting that. It likely means the feds need to define the internet. It is pretty hard to block all citizens of an area from visiting "undesirable" sites, so the concept of crossing state lines via the internet will have to be addressed. However. it's not just the US. There are lots of places (looking southwest towared the land of koalas) with different standards from other nations. There are people who can get thru almost any internet wall if they're determined to. Does this mean those nations are going to be trying citizens of other nations for pornography? Just as Roman Polansky had to avoid coming to the US for yrs (& still got caught), will we be seeing scores of people unable to travel due to international warrants for violating crimes in nations they've never visited? Not to mention the cost. My gosh, extradition isn't that cheap. Some states I know do not extradite lesser crimes. They just issue a warrant so if the person ever returns to that state, s/he gets arrested. (I gave a client permission to travel to another state so he could turn himself in to that state a couple months back. They put him in prison when he arrived, but they weren't paying to take him back). |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group