It's a scary world boys and girls

[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.