Post A Reply
my profile
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board
»
Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk
»
Freedom of Speech in this country... Not anymore....
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [QB] Ok, on with the show... [b]Yes, I did mean "text" so you'll have to forgive me if I forgot to type a word. But the point is that a "text" obscenity case hasn't been brought to trial in decades for a reason.[/b] True, sort of. The original article lists at least two other cases of text based obscenity prosecution. [i]Pittsburgh is the same venue where the Extreme Associates obscenity case is being pursued, although no action has been taken in the case since August of last year. [/i] and [i]There is one such case pending in Athens, Georgia (U.S. v. McCoy), so all eyes will now turn to that case to see if any precedent is made; one way or the other," Walters told XBIZ. "Notably, the government initiated that prosecution long before the plea agreement was stuck in the Fletcher case, so the DOJ seems intent on pursuing these cases even where no images are involved." [/i] This case may not set precedent as it was pled out, but it makes a good starting point for these and future cases. [b] They went after her because it was a easy case considering her "condition" assuming they knew about it. Which I think they did. [/b] You [i]think[/i] they did? Based on what? The Defense's 'we're saving face even though we lost' bologna? Yeah, that's objective. [b]The defense used in the Utah Porno case most likely would of been used in this case so you are not being realistic. They would of shown that the "community" whereever jurisdiction of this case was in was suscribing to her site at $10 a pop therefor it would of shown that it was "acceptable" by that community and considered literary by that community. [/b] And perhaps that true, since she didn't fight it out we'll never know. Moreover, neither of us will get\have to read her work because she took it down and it's no longer available. That being said, all we have to base our opinions on is what is listed in the article. Using one line from her own mouth though... [i]I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room." [/i] Since she uses that scenario as what she considers society's ok version, I think it's safe to assume that her work encompased many of the opposites: not man w. woman (ie adult with child), non-consentual (ie rape), and non-missionary position in the dark (many other styles; not a real point on which she would have been indicted I'm sure). But admittedly that is only an assumption. We may never know... Thankfully. The point of contention in the whole thread has been is ALL written speach protected by the first amendment? With all that we've said and posted I have to say I still don't think it is. The Miller case and other precedents show that the Freedom of Speach is NOT absolute. Sorry. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Allstocks.com Message Board Home
© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2