It's a scary world boys and girls

[sarettah]

Ok, because of all the federal action this week I have been giving myself a laymans crash course in obscenity, legalwise.

I have found all sorts of different stuff, but probably the scariest thing I found, as far as the internet goes, is a little writeup on Ginzburg v US from 1965.

In this, the courts ruled that the way a product was advertised could be used in determining whether said product was obscene.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan held that in a close case, evidence that a defendant deliberately represented the materials in question as appealing to customers' erotic interest could support a finding that the materials are obscene. He wrote: "Where the purveyor's sole emphasis is on the sexually provocative aspects of his publications, that fact may be decisive in the determination of obscenity" even if the publications examined out of context might not be deemed obscene

What that means (as I read it and no, I am not a lawyer - but I do post on Oprano ) is that if the clear intent of the advertisement was appealing to the prurient interest, it could be construed that the product therefore is designed to appeal to the prurient interest.

Think about that the next time you write a text link



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html - a ways down the page

[MorganGrayson]

I'll wait here while every producer of a toothpaste commercial is hauled off to jail.

I wonder what Black's Law Dictionary has to say about "purient interests"?


It does explain why that blonde woman with the vibrator has been poking herself in the face for decades, though.

[Nickatilynx]

In business etc , I always do a "ok , if I was him , what would I do?" routine to try and guess outcomes.

so here goes one....

I'm in my late 20searly 30s.I'm an ambitious Asst DA in middle america.
I'd love one day to be Govenor.
How to do it.?

Hmmm research a few internet porners in my jurisdiction.
Preferably flashy and / or mom and pop operations.
Make a big to do about how net porn poisons the minds of our kids , there is no control on it , you can see hardcore images and movies by merely clicking a link declaring "I'm 18".
Lets be honest the majority of the electorate equate and pornographer as a kiddie porn selling pervert that just hasn't been caught yet.
Hmmmm lets bust a few for obcenity.Let it be known I intend to do my bit to clean up the net and will get those in my area.
Pick on ones without much capital but with enough to look flashy.Some kids driving nice cars , clubbing etc etc.
Also maybe one or two who go to the PTA and seem normal. Both will make good headlines.
"19 yr old millionaire selling filth online"
"Who knew they had a dungeon in the basement , they seemed so nice"

Make sure both sets do not really have the wherewithall to mount a strong defence.

Vote Me for Govenor help me help you rid the obscenity that is force fed to our kids daily.

heheheheheh

that will work....

[Dravyk]

A good recipe for election in America. Sadly.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

In business etc , I always do a "ok , if I was him , what would I do?" routine to try and guess outcomes.

so here goes one....

I'm in my late 20searly 30s.I'm an ambitious Asst DA in middle america.
I'd love one day to be Govenor.
How to do it.?

Hmmm research a few internet porners in my jurisdiction.
Preferably flashy and / or mom and pop operations.
Make a big to do about how net porn poisons the minds of our kids , there is no control on it , you can see hardcore images and movies by merely clicking a link declaring "I'm 18".
Lets be honest the majority of the electorate equate and pornographer as a kiddie porn selling pervert that just hasn't been caught yet.
Hmmmm lets bust a few for obcenity.Let it be known I intend to do my bit to clean up the net and will get those in my area.
Pick on ones without much capital but with enough to look flashy.Some kids driving nice cars , clubbing etc etc.
Also maybe one or two who go to the PTA and seem normal. Both will make good headlines.
"19 yr old millionaire selling filth online"
"Who knew they had a dungeon in the basement , they seemed so nice"

Make sure both sets do not really have the wherewithall to mount a strong defence.

Vote Me for Govenor help me help you rid the obscenity that is force fed to our kids daily.

heheheheheh

that will work....

Unfortunately, that sums it up in a nutshell.

[Red]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

I'll wait here while every producer of a toothpaste commercial is hauled off to jail.

I wonder what Black's Law Dictionary has to say about "purient interests"?


It does explain why that blonde woman with the vibrator has been poking herself in the face for decades, though.

Not just toothpaste. Beer, cars, body moisturizers, come to think of it, the list of products NOT sold with sex would be shorter.

[PornoDoggy]

Ahhh ... I can see that Red and Morgan have missed the point.

Sex to sell something is not just acceptable, it's downright patriotic. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolets and all that, you know.

Now, sex for the sake of arousing prurient interests ... that's a whole different story. You're not doing something wholesome, like making somebody part with money in order to purchase something they don't need - you're just out to make them think sick thoughts.

[Red]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Ahhh ... I can see that Red and Morgan have missed the point.

Sex to sell something is not just acceptable, it's downright patriotic. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolets and all that, you know.

Now, sex for the sake of arousing prurient interests ... that's a whole different story. You're not doing something wholesome, like making somebody part with money in order to purchase something they don't need - you're just out to make them think sick thoughts.

You're right PD. Silly me, I forgot that capitalism and the God of advertising supercedes all else.

[sarettah]

One of the key phrases (imho) in there is "in a close case". So basically, this would come in to play at the point that they have decided something could be obscene, so most of the commercials are out of it. For use in the toothpaste commercial, they would have to be looking at the product "toothpaste" as a possible obscenity before they would look at the advertisement for the toothpaste.

It is far less likely that they would look at a tube of toothpaste as a possible obscenity then it is they they would look at a site or gallery catering to the "Barely legal teens getting their asses split open" niche

[Red]

Originally Posted by sarettah

One of the key phrases (imho) in there is "in a close case". So basically, this would come in to play at the point that they have decided something could be obscene, so most of the commercials are out of it. For use in the toothpaste commercial, they would have to be looking at the product "toothpaste" as a possible obscenity before they would look at the advertisement for the toothpaste.

It is far less likely that they would look at a tube of toothpaste as a possible obscenity then it is they they would look at a site or gallery catering to the "Barely legal teens getting their asses split open" niche

True, but the legal definition of obscenity now comes under the Miller ruling.
One of the points of that is:
whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

A dictionary definition of "prurient" is anything "causing lascivious or lustful thoughts."

They wouldn't be looking at the toothpaste being obscene, but the way the product is promoted. A perfect case is the Paris Hilton burger king ad. They pulled that off the air pretty quickly.

The double standard is BK gets a slap on the wrist and is told to remove the ad. Their corporate offices don't get raided and no one goes to jail.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Red

True, but the legal definition of obscenity now comes under the Miller ruling.
One of the points of that is:
whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

A dictionary definition of "prurient" is anything "causing lascivious or lustful thoughts."

They wouldn't be looking at the toothpaste being obscene, but the way the product is promoted. A perfect case is the Paris Hilton burger king ad. They pulled that off the air pretty quickly.

The double standard is BK gets a slap on the wrist and is told to remove the ad. Their corporate offices don't get raided and no one goes to jail.

You're still missing my point (I think)...

The way this decision can be used against the adult net is that by promoting the product (a gallery or paysite or image, whatever) using text descriptions that are designed to attract the prurient interest they can claim that supports that the product is obscene.

This is not calling the ad obscene (as in PH and BK) but the product (ie the gallery, image or paysite) based on how it was advertised.

In the case of PH and BK for this to apply, they would have had to say The burger king product is obscene and as supporting evidence, look at how it is promoted. Since the burger king product (hamburger) fails the miller test, they never look at how it is advertised for the supporting argument.