Quote:
|
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.