posted
Even though I probably wouldn't read her stories and would be disgusted by them, I fail to see how she can be convicted a crime for this (this in theory could affect Hollywood movies, horror novels etc., I hope the ACLU will take up her case and continue fighting it):
Karen Fletcher to Plead Guilty to Obscenity Charges
By Stephen Yagielowicz Monday, May 19, 2008 Text size: PITTSBURGH Putting an end to her nearly three year long fight against federal charges stemming from fictional stories on her "Red Rose" website, Karen Fletcher will plead guilty to six counts of distributing obscenity online. Fletcher's plea is scheduled to be entered in Pittsburgh on August 8, before U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti, who will reportedly sentence Fletcher to an unspecified period of house arrest.
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.
XBIZ has reported on the Red Rose case since the website's closure in October of 2005 over stories that among other topics allegedly depicted the rape and torture of children and infants.
"I never thought I'd be in trouble for the written word," Fletcher told XBIZ at the time of her site's closure. "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."
Although many observers doubted that an obscenity conviction based solely on text-only content could be made in today's society, Fletcher's emotional state, including suffering from agoraphobia a fear of public places reportedly prevented her from carrying on the fight for her free speech rights.
"This plea was mandated by the client's mental and emotional state. She cannot endure a week long trial in a public place, and would not likely survive any period of incarceration," Lawrence Walters, an attorney representing Fletcher, told XBIZ.
"While we always hope our clients are mentally and physically able to carry the freedom banner to the highest court in the land, that is not reality and for some, it is in their best interests to resolve their case by agreement," Walters explained. "Any federal case that results in a no jail sentence is a victory, by anyone's definition. A no jail sentence is quite uncommon in the federal system. We believe the plea agreement reflects the inherent weaknesses in the prosecutor's case, and the constitutional issues that remained for appeal."
Fletcher helped prevent minors from accessing the Red Rose site by charging a $10 monthly membership fee, and while allowing the posting of stories by members, prevented any images from being posted.
Fletcher's voluntary plea bargain will have not have any impact on current or future text-based obscenity prosecutions, Walters said, but a similar case is now pending that could set precedent if it proceeded to trial.
"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."
Walters predicts that the government could cherry pick additional targets for prosecution based upon the principal's perceived vulnerabilities.
"The government has always been able to prey on the weak in society, in an effort to scare the rest of us. This is nothing new. The prosecutors knew who they were dealing with in the Fletcher case," Walters told XBIZ. "I am proud that she fought as long as she did, and we were honored to represent her for the last year and a half. We were all committed to taking this case to the Supreme Court if that's what was necessary to keep her out of prison."
However, a prison stretch may be required for some unlucky operator before the issue is resolved.
"In the end, I am confident that Free Speech rights will prevail, but it will probably take somebody willing to sit in a federal prison while their case is being hashed out in the appellate courts," Walters added.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like she should not have been found competent to stand trial if she couldn't even get out to the court to defend herself.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Mach, I'll play Devil's Advocate on this one.
Fletcher helped prevent minors from accessing the Red Rose site by charging a $10 monthly membership fee, and while allowing the posting of stories by members, prevented any images from being posted.
My question was how was the fee paid? If it's credit card, then it's about as 'child proof' as most porn sites. If it's Pay Pal-able, then it's not even close to a deterent since almost everyone has an account these days.
XBIZ has reported on the Red Rose case since the website's closure in October of 2005 over stories that among other topics allegedly depicted the rape and torture of children and infants.
Since the charge was distribution of obcenity online it's not hard to see how this is covered.
are pretty good articles covering the subject material. If she (from the information in the story) knowingly provided material to whoever happened to be reading depicting child rape and other 'obscene' material, then sadly it doesn't fall under the 1st amendment coverage.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you f*cking kidding me? .... First the issue had never been about "child proof" and how the fee was paid so get that out of your head. Next,it was text not photographic images. They were words. All words are protected by 1st Amendment right for Freedom of Speech whether you agree with them or not and whether they disgust you or not.Your Bible disgustes me but your colleagues have the right to write such fictional trash that oddly enough depicts incest,murder etc.and read it. Let me remind you of Freedom on Speech:
"Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship"
As for Obscenity:
"The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities."
Your "Mormon" minions tried this BS in Utah against Pornography and lost because the defendants' "Mormon" lawyer oddly enough was able to prove that such material was accepted in the community in which the case was tried in. How did he prove it? He showed that normal everyday Mormons suscribed and/or watched pornography on cable channels: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01EEDA1631F930A15753C1A9669C8B6 3
Seems like you Mormons sure like your pornography.
Anyways as for the RedRose case, what she wrote were her thoughts & not actions therefor it is protected by the First Amendment much like Hate Speech is protected. This is the first case of obscenity based on text in decades in the U.S. and you know what? Had she gone to trial she would of prevailed but unfortunately she suffers from the ability of not going out. This is nothing more then Big Brother infringing on our right to read what we want. But anyways this case is not a precedent case. A much important case that could set precedent whether pro or con is coming up soon. The name of the case escapes my mind but i read it somewhere. But the Red Rose diaries were "fantasy" stories and if this case had been precedent we would all be in trouble because then stories such as Stephen Kings' IT where a Killer clown kills children or Less than Zeroe by Bret Easton Ellis (a 12 yr old girl is tied to a bed and raped)or books by the Marquis De Sade or a dozen other books if not more would be censored that I am sure the board members could name. I have a right to read such material and people have a right to write it because it should not and is not a crime to write your thoughts unless you had acted upon those thoughts that you wrote.
What is OBSCENE is letting a bunch of right wing Christians dictate what is allowed to be written or not written and the hell with Freedom of Speech. Btw perhaps we should ban/censor the Bible with it's depictions of murder, incest etc. based on my definition of obscene and my standards. Hope you see the "light" now.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mach...I think freedom of speech is alive and well
We are subjected here on a regular basis to your simple minded ramblings, which are quite often obscene and almost ALWAYS offensive...yet they continue to let you babble with absolutely no censorship..
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Mach...I think freedom of speech is alive and well
We are subjected here on a regular basis to your simple minded ramblings, which are quite often obscene and almost ALWAYS offensive...yet they continue to let you babble with absolutely no censorship..
Oddly enough you described yourself to a "T" and not surprisingly you contributed nothing to the topic at hand which you do alot as always. So if you do not like what I post you do not have to read them because if you do then you have only yourself to blame for being a fool reading something you do not like.And as always you have nothing to contribute, to the Red Rose case and it's implications of the First Amendment then I suggest you go about your merry way and choose a topic that you can contribute to in another thread which i am sure you are not capable of doing.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say though Retired... I replied to SF the way I did to show him that even though something offends him like my language which some consider obscene, it is protected by the 1st Amendment. I also wanted to show him that even though his Bible offends me & I consider it obscene with it's teachings it is also protected by the 1st Amendment. Just because it is obscene for one person doesn't mean it's obscene for every person in a community so therefor a charge like this would be null & void. This was proven in the Utah Porno case that i provided a link for. Since I am a "simple minded" person who cannot provide such things perhaps you should look. But anyways we as adults have the right to determine for ourselves in the privacy of our home what we can read or view because if you censor words like Red Rose then where does it end? Next would be Stephen King with child murders by a killer clown in a horror book, Anne Rice with sexuality in her Vampire books, Freddy Krueger with his child murders (yes i know not a book but you get the PICTURE, pun intended), etc. etc. Let's not forget that Catcher in the Rye was one of the most frequently censored books from its publication till around 1982. Now it's considered a classic. So even though books like Mein Kampf, 100 Days of Sodom , the Red Rose stories etc. disgusts you, you really only have to not read them but you shouldn't take the right of others to read them much less write them. Once you censor words you truely are taking away the number #1 right in this country that has made this country the greatest country in the world (though thats debatable nowadays it seems). Our right to say our thoughts in written word or spoken speech.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See...you are free to belittle people, call them names and insult them as you please...
I haven't contributed anything to this thread because I believe that your complaint about our rights to freedom of speech in this country is childish and baseless, as are most of your complaints.
Don't flatter yourself and think for one minute that you are contributing anything useful to this board...because you aren't.
This is merely a place for you to ***** about the things that you don't like...
and...you have got to be THE biggest hypocrite on this board...You are quick to insult and stereotype others (christians, conservatives, etc.) or anyone else that doesn't fit into your spoiled little world, but you cry like a baby when someone insults or stereotypes something that is important to YOU...
I usually do skip over your posts because your opinions are usually simple minded, short sighted, and immature at best...
Now DO YOU see the light?
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
First the issue had never been about "child proof" and how the fee was paid so get that out of your head.
Actually it might have been. Porn sites HAVE to have some form of age identification\restriction to avoid distribution to minors issues. So, if they found she didn't do enough to stop minors from accessing her material that alone could have caused the suit.
Next,it was text not photographic images. They were words.
I think you need to read up a little more on what is termed pornography and obscene material under the legal terminology.
All words are protected by 1st Amendment right for Freedom of Speech whether you agree with them or not and whether they disgust you or not.
Sorry to be the one to break this to you, Mach, but, uh, no ALL words aren't protected. That was kind of the point in my linking the wikipedia article on it. The supreme court has ALWAYS held that the 1st amendment in nowhere near absolute. Several exceptions exist and are not protected. If you really think you can say whatever you want, try calling a friend and telling them you want to kill the president. You're body cavity search will follow shortly. Thank Bill for that 'freedom.'
"The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities."
Guess I have to keep beating this horse 'cause it still isn't dead enough for you.
THE MAJORITY GETS TO SET THE STANDARDS.
If enought people consider it obscene material, it is. That's how it gets decided. Not by me, not by you. By the MAJORITY. At least at this moment, the majority consider child rape and torture obscene. Sorry if you don't.
Anyways as for the RedRose case, what she wrote were her thoughts & not actions therefor it is protected by the First Amendment much like Hate Speech is protected.
You may want to check that one again. Hate speech walks a fine line. If you just say you hate someone, you're fine. If you incite others to violent action through hate speech, you're not.
Had she gone to trial she would of prevailed but unfortunately she suffers from the ability of not going out.
Did you know that Stephen King said that he can't sleep without a night light because his stories have even given him the creeps. I'd be afraid to go out too if I fantasized about torturing children and thought others like that were common in public.
Your "Mormon" minions tried this BS in Utah against Pornography .....
and
What is OBSCENE is letting a bunch of right wing Christians dictate what is allowed to be written or not written and the hell with Freedom of Speech....
This is why discussion and debate are a dying art, Mach. Why bother debating a point when you can just generalize and make bigoted, myopic comments like these. You claim that 'right wing christians' are the ones that are predjudice while spewing this kind of garbage.
Way to take the moral high ground.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: I haven't contributed anything to this thread because I believe that your complaint about our rights to freedom of speech in this country is childish and baseless, as are most of your complaints.
Care to show how so? So to you the 1st Amendment based on this case and others are childish?
quote:Don't flatter yourself and think for one minute that you are contributing anything useful to this board...because you aren't.
I contribute about as much as you do so makes us even.
quote:This is merely a place for you to ***** about the things that you don't like...
Wow, did you come up with that yourself? Because as far as i see this is exactly what this forum is about backed by debating whatever issue. It's exactly what you do yourself.
quote:and...you have got to be THE biggest hypocrite on this board...You are quick to insult and stereotype others (christians, conservatives, etc.) or anyone else that doesn't fit into your spoiled little world, but you cry like a baby when someone insults or stereotypes something that is important to YOU...
Nah, i would say PMS and Bgeesus are bigger then me in that regards. I have even seen you do the same a time or two so don't play so innocent. And alot of us on this board get insulted by stereotypes/insults to what is important to us so that is nothing new.
quote:I usually do skip over your posts because your opinions are usually simple minded, short sighted, and immature at best...
Then keep skipping old man. Why reply or post then? I can paste posts by you that describe those three things including your first post to me in this thread but I wouldn't waste my time.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Actually it might have been. Porn sites HAVE to have some form of age identification\restriction to avoid distribution to minors issues. So, if they found she didn't do enough to stop minors from accessing her material that alone could have caused the suit.
Again, I'll say it differently. No one was debating (the prosecutors and defense) that the site was a adults only site. It was never mentioned because it goes without saying and age verification was used on her site so let's move on.
quote:I think you need to read up a little more on what is termed pornography and obscene material under the legal terminology.
" In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in thatnot only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the "Miller test", below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally "obscene" in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and "community standards" has created significant controversy in the legal community."
quote:Sorry to be the one to break this to you, Mach, but, uh, no ALL words aren't protected. That was kind of the point in my linking the wikipedia article on it. The supreme court has ALWAYS held that the 1st amendment in nowhere near absolute. Several exceptions exist and are not protected. If you really think you can say whatever you want, try calling a friend and telling them you want to kill the president. You're body cavity search will follow shortly. Thank Bill for that 'freedom.'
" The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subjective to the local federal districts inside the United States and the local moral standards at the time."
quote:"The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities."
Guess I have to keep beating this horse 'cause it still isn't dead enough for you.
THE MAJORITY GETS TO SET THE STANDARDS.
If enought people consider it obscene material, it is. That's how it gets decided. Not by me, not by you. By the MAJORITY. At least at this moment, the majority consider child rape and torture obscene. Sorry if you don't.
Those words you quoted from me were actually from the Wiki article you linked me to on Obscenity. Guess you didn't read that part. And even though you like to believe Majority rules that is not the case always. If that were true then Mormons such as yourself are in the minority in alot of religious issues etc. Since imo the Mormon religion is a minority christian religion. Also I guess you didn't read my article I linked you where in Utah the Mormons are the MAJORITY but still lost the Obscenity/Pornography case for reasons other then the MAJORITY argument. Here try reading it then tell me otherwise: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01EEDA1631F930A15753C1A9669C8B6 3
quote:You may want to check that one again. Hate speech walks a fine line. If you just say you hate someone, you're fine. If you incite others to violent action through hate speech, you're not.
Much like this case is a fine line. She is writing "fantasy" stories and not advocating others to commit what they read in a fictional story.
quote:Did you know that Stephen King said that he can't sleep without a night light because his stories have even given him the creeps. I'd be afraid to go out too if I fantasized about torturing children and thought others like that were common in public.
Yes, I know Stephen King said that but what does that have to do with the case? I will say that I bet he gets his best stories from his nightmares/dreams.
quote:Your "Mormon" minions tried this BS in Utah against Pornography .....
What is OBSCENE is letting a bunch of right wing Christians dictate what is allowed to be written or not written and the hell with Freedom of Speech....
quote:This is why discussion and debate are a dying art, Mach. Why bother debating a point when you can just generalize and make bigoted, myopic comments like these. You claim that 'right wing christians' are the ones that are predjudice while spewing this kind of garbage.
Way to take the moral high ground.
I admit I am prejudice against right wing Christians but that is because i see the same from them. That is my flaw and i admit it. I hate the religion not the person or as you would say hate the sin and not the sinner. Anyways i am trying to debate or discuss this with you and others but someone else had to turn it into a flame fest because he don't like me.... like he thinks I care. But anyways if you wish we can continue discussing this and hopefully others will join and offer both pro's and con's in this issue. I will be more civil and try not to lose my cool (my latin temper i suppose ). I am surprised you choose "Seeking Freedom" as a name when at the same time you want to supress it.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was never mentioned because it goes without saying and age verification was used on her site so let's move on.
Reread the article, Mach. It was actually mentioned.
Fletcher helped prevent minors from accessing the Red Rose site by charging a $10 monthly membership fee, and while allowing the posting of stories by members, prevented any images from being posted.
It just didn't mention how the monthly membership fee was collected. Hence my original question as to credit card vs pay pal.
Those words you quoted from me were actually from the Wiki article you linked me to on Obscenity. Guess you didn't read that part.
Oddly enough, Mach, I did. They don't diminish my point in the least. Without a solidly defined definition to work with, the legal definition used for prosecuting it is largely based on local MAJORITY opinion. What is ok in a 'red-light' district in some areas is way off limits in most of suburbia.
And even though you like to believe Majority rules that is not the case always.
Whether through action or apathy, majority ALWAYS rules.
If that were true then Mormons such as yourself are in the minority in alot of religious issues etc. Since imo the Mormon religion is a minority christian religion.
Yes, we are. What is your point?
Also I guess you didn't read my article I linked you where in Utah the Mormons are the MAJORITY but still lost the Obscenity/Pornography case for reasons other then the MAJORITY argument.
Once again, oddly enough I did read your article. While I disagree with the conclusion the defense drew from records from a hotel in which many people from many areas stay to say that it must mean that mormons were the ones viewing porn; I don't argue that there area some that do. The Mormon Church isn't an exclusive club for the perfect. It's a group rehab for the imperfect who don't want to stay that way.
As for the majority thing, you should check your stats before making blanket statements like that.
"Professor Tim Heaton, who studies LDS demographics for church-owned Brigham Young University, says the county numbers probably come from church membership rolls, and that between half and one-third of those people are not active in the faith. If that's true, then, at most, 41.6 percent of Utahns are church-going Mormons. "
We have been the minority for a while now and continue to drop back as an overall percentage of the population. As such is the case, that means that more and more decisions will be made that may not fully reflect the desires of the Church membership. Again, simple group dynamics at work.
She is writing "fantasy" stories and not advocating others to commit what they read in a fictional story.
Fantasies are what you'd like to do if there were no consequences to doing it. By encouraging this kind of forum, she is just strengthening the appetite for it. Sooner or later, someone will act no matter how 'noble' her intentions.
I hate the religion not the person or as you would say hate the sin and not the sinner.
Then just as a passing suggestion...attack the institution not those of us who claim to belong to them. You can just as easily wait until I (or anyone else) posts something you disagree with and THEN flame us. Looks more objective than assuming you know what we MIGHT post and pre-emptively flaming.
I am surprised you choose "Seeking Freedom" as a name when at the same time you want to supress it.
Freedom means different things to different people. Maybe we'll cover it in another thread.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: It just didn't mention how the monthly membership fee was collected. Hence my original question as to credit card vs pay pal.
Correct me if I am wrong but with PayPal don't you need a credit card and/or bank account? I know I did when I opened one years ago though I haven't used PP in a long time.
quote:Oddly enough, Mach, I did. They don't diminish my point in the least. Without a solidly defined definition to work with, the legal definition used for prosecuting it is largely based on local MAJORITY opinion. What is ok in a 'red-light' district in some areas is way off limits in most of suburbia.
And even though you like to believe Majority rules that is not the case always.
Whether through action or apathy, majority ALWAYS rules.
Obviously the Majority didn't rule in the Mormon Porno/Obscenity case because the judge and/or jury in that case disagreed with the prosecutors and people like you.
quote:Yes, we are. What is your point?
I'll let you ponder that one.
quote:Once again, oddly enough I did read your article. While I disagree with the conclusion the defense drew from records from a hotel in which many people from many areas stay to say that it must mean that mormons were the ones viewing porn; I don't argue that there area some that do. The Mormon Church isn't an exclusive club for the perfect. It's a group rehab for the imperfect who don't want to stay that way.
Imperfect in your opinion perhaps but imperfect is different for everyone. I can see why people were so concerned about Romney running for Prez. He probably would not of separated Church from State.
quote:As for the majority thing, you should check your stats before making blanket statements like that.
"Professor Tim Heaton, who studies LDS demographics for church-owned Brigham Young University, says the county numbers probably come from church membership rolls, and that between half and one-third of those people are not active in the faith. If that's true, then, at most, 41.6 percent of Utahns are church-going Mormons. "
We have been the minority for a while now and continue to drop back as an overall percentage of the population. As such is the case, that means that more and more decisions will be made that may not fully reflect the desires of the Church membership. Again, simple group dynamics at work.
Who cares if they are church going or not they are still Mormons. My parents do not go to Church at all but consider themselves Catholics . Me, I don't know where i fall with my "faith" but that doesn't matter. But anyways perhaps the Mormons aren't the Majority in Utah anymore but they certainly are the Power in Utah.
quote:Fantasies are what you'd like to do if there were no consequences to doing it. By encouraging this kind of forum, she is just strengthening the appetite for it. Sooner or later, someone will act no matter how 'noble' her intentions.
What you seem to not get is that if someone has the intention of hurting a child a story/movie/music etc. is not the source. That is inside a person. They may give the person a method of harming a child but not the original idea. If a sicko comes up with his own method or copies a method the end result is still the same. Censoring such works will not prevent a sicko from doing what he wants. Censorship only prevents artistic works from being expressed. Who knows Big Brother might say in the future the works of Mormons fall into this and be censored. That is the point. Where does it end? Nowhere because there will always be someone offended by every written word. Like I said right now it is Red Rose then next Stephen King (Horror), Anne Rice(Erotica/Horror), Salinger, De Sade etc.
quote:Then just as a passing suggestion...attack the institution not those of us who claim to belong to them. You can just as easily wait until I (or anyone else) posts something you disagree with and THEN flame us. Looks more objective than assuming you know what we MIGHT post and pre-emptively flaming. [quote][qb] Noted. I just attack a representation of the institution. But anyways post something that I disagree with so i can flame you then lol jk
[quote][qb]Freedom means different things to different people. Maybe we'll cover it in another thread.
Typical GOPer lol jk... Anyways a couple of things:
1. The Red Rose depicts fictional child rape and/or murder. What about newspapers that report the news in graphic detail? Wouldn't it be considered "obscene" by your definition and give a sicko the idea to do such things same as RR? And if so why preferential treatment for one (media) and not the other (fictional) if both describe more or less the same things.
2. Forget what you think is obscene or not etc. Ask yourself if she had gone to trial would she had prevailed? Now remember no obscenity case has been tried much less convicted in decades. Also the Feds probably chose this case knowing about her "condition" and that the probable ending would be that she would plead guilty. But forget that, let's assume she didn't have that condition and went to trial. Do you really think this case would of ended in conviction?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously the Majority didn't rule in the Mormon Porno/Obscenity case because the judge and/or jury in that case disagreed with the prosecutors and people like you.
Once again, we're not the majority anymore.
I can see why people were so concerned about Romney running for Prez. He probably would not of separated Church from State.
Wow, that resolution didn't last long, eh? Yet another completely baseless comment from a predjudice point of view. He did just fine seperating the two as governor. No reason to pre-suppose he would have done different as pres.
Who cares if they are church going or not they are still Mormons. My parents do not go to Church at all but consider themselves Catholics.
If they don't practice the faith, Mach, it doesn't stand to reason that their opinions mirror the tennants of the religion.
But anyways perhaps the Mormons aren't the Majority in Utah anymore but they certainly are the Power in Utah.
And the ignorant comments keep coming. SLC is almost completly run by Democrats and liberal Repubs. Most of what comes out of there is only marginally in line with the LDS faith and it's getting farther from it every year. We may still be A power...but we haven't been THE power for many years.
What you seem to not get is that if someone has the intention of hurting a child a story/movie/music etc. is not the source. That is inside a person. They may give the person a method of harming a child but not the original idea. If a sicko comes up with his own method or copies a method the end result is still the same. Censoring such works will not prevent a sicko from doing what he wants.
A 'sicko in development' may never reach the point of hurting someone if they are convinced that the thoughts are wrong and need correction\therapy. If, however, the thoughts are allowed to foster and even encouraged as 'ok' then they progress and fester until action is the only possible outcome. By encouraging this garbage as 'just fantasy' you are lending credence to it's validity with the previously listed consequences.
Censorship only prevents artistic works from being expressed.
Child rape and torture is NOT art. I don't care how you spin it.
Who knows Big Brother might say in the future the works of Mormons fall into this and be censored.
Did you know that we are the only religious group in american history that it's been LEGAL to shoot it's members. Read up on a Governor Boggs.
Where does it end? Nowhere because there will always be someone offended by every written word.
Someone, yes. The majority, not yet. Someone will ALWAYS be unhappy with EVERY decision. But once again (sigh), until the majority of people consider this garbage as acceptable, it's obscene.
1. The Red Rose depicts fictional child rape and/or murder. What about newspapers that report the news in graphic detail? Wouldn't it be considered "obscene" by your definition and give a sicko the idea to do such things same as RR? And if so why preferential treatment for one (media) and not the other (fictional) if both describe more or less the same things.
Apples and oranges. The first depicts the act as an acceptable fantasy\action. The second treats it as a tragedy that needs to be condemned.
Now remember no obscenity case has been tried much less convicted in decades.
This is getting tiresome, Mach. Please check your info or don't make 'authoritative' statements. Obscenity cases are prosecuted regularly. Here's a website with a full library of them.
...there hasn't been a case that has applied obscenity laws to text since the U.S. Supreme Court refined the test for obscenity in its 1973 case Miller v. California.
The Miller case stated that the basic guidelines for whether something was obscene include:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Also the Feds probably chose this case knowing about her "condition" and that the probable ending would be that she would plead guilty.
Way to parrot the defense attorney in the article, Mach. I'm pretty sure the heartless prosecutors chose to attack a poor, defenseless, innocent woman just for kicks. The statutes exist, if a crime by the legal definition occurs, they are duty bound to follow it up.
But forget that, let's assume she didn't have that condition and went to trial. Do you really think this case would of ended in conviction?
It fits the Miller criteria; so, yes.
But anyways post something that I disagree with so i can flame you then lol jk
Hope this qualifies. Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'll reply tomorrow perhaps or before i leave for my trip... right now playing poker and relaxing.. our convo's tend to get longer and longer and since no one else is participating probably best to PM this debate... up to you
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No rush, Mach. I'd rather wait a few days and let you have time to respond how you want. Have a great trip and be safe.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Once again, we're not the majority anymore.
We'll considering that 60.7% of Utah's population is Mormon I would have to beg to differ as of 2007. The LDS Church even acknowledges this.
quote:Wow, that resolution didn't last long, eh? Yet another completely baseless comment from a predjudice point of view. He did just fine seperating the two as governor. No reason to pre-suppose he would have done different as pres.
We'll since the MAJORITY religion in Massachusetts is Catholic I think he knew it would be counterproductive to fight the powers that be in that state if we go by your ideas on MAJORITY RULES....
quote:If they don't practice the faith, Mach, it doesn't stand to reason that their opinions mirror the tennants of the religion.
There is no rule saying you have to go to Church/Temple/Mosque etc. to practice your faith. There is plenty of religious fanatics that practice their faith in the quiet of their home.
quote:And the ignorant comments keep coming. SLC is almost completly run by Democrats and liberal Repubs. Most of what comes out of there is only marginally in line with the LDS faith and it's getting farther from it every year. We may still be A power...but we haven't been THE power for many years.
That is just one city, not the STATE. 60.7% are still Mormons. MAJORITY RULES remember? I do find it funny & ironic that SLC was named one of the top 51 "gay-friendly places" to live in the U.S. lol I'm also surprised that 63% of the city population voted against banning same-sex marriages. Payback's a b*tch I suppose lol
quote:A 'sicko in development' may never reach the point of hurting someone if they are convinced that the thoughts are wrong and need correction\therapy. If, however, the thoughts are allowed to foster and even encouraged as 'ok' then they progress and fester until action is the only possible outcome. By encouraging this garbage as 'just fantasy' you are lending credence to it's validity with the previously listed consequences.
"The Devil Made Me Do It" is just a excuse for people not taking responsibility for their actions and people like you are the ones giving them the excuse by banning literature you find offensive & say makes people do things. This was tried in 2 civil cases in the past where suicides were blamed on Heavy Metal music:
Obviously going by your MAJORITY RULES idea then it is safe to say the same result would of happened in the RR case had it gone to trial to the end.
quote:Child rape and torture is NOT art. I don't care how you spin it.
We both have not read her stories to judge them. Stories of rape, torture and murder have been in literature since the beginning of time most notably imo the Marquis De Sade's books. Tell me why aren't his books ruled "Obscene" and banned? Why aren't other books such as Stephen Kings banned and ruled "obscene" as well as other authors?
quote:Did you know that we are the only religious group in american history that it's been LEGAL to shoot it's members. Read up on a Governor Boggs.
Yes, I know the death penalty in Utah consists of firing squad beginning with Gary Gilmore in the late 70's i believe. I already know there is backwards thinking in UT for long time. A friend of mine when we were teenagers was forced by her father to move to UT with her sister and forced to live a Mormon lifestyle. She told me about your "faith" and what it was like to live in UT back then.
quote:Someone, yes. The majority, not yet. Someone will ALWAYS be unhappy with EVERY decision. But once again (sigh), until the majority of people consider this garbage as acceptable, it's obscene.
What you fail to acknowledge is that the Majority of the population is not in that courtroom. It is the Judge and/or Jury that decides the case and even though Majority rules in a jury decision/vote, they are not suppose to rule based on their personal feelings/morals but on the facts of the case. That is what happened in the Mormon Porno case and the outcome reflects that. No doubt in my mind the same would of happened in the RR case if she was able to leave her house regardless of what you say.
quote:Apples and oranges. The first depicts the act as an acceptable fantasy\action. The second treats it as a tragedy that needs to be condemned.
Odd, you and me both have not read her stories to determine for ourselves that she advocates such acts. As being acceptable. You are assuming she did regardless of what the government charges. I would think that a "open minded" person such as yourself would at least read the stories she wrote to come to such a conclusion for yourself and not just take the Gov'ts accusation at face value. I would hate to have you on my jury if i were on trial for something whether a obscenity case or some other case. You would already have decided on a verdict before even hearing the case. Anyways does not matter if the newspaper account condemns it. A sicko has no concious and going by your logic that they take inspiration in words then logic says they would get inspiration from a news story just as much as from a fictional account. In fact serial killers sometimes tend to save newspaper articles of their crimes as well as other killers crimes for inspiration and/or nostalgia. Now Now, don't play favorites.
quote:Now remember no obscenity case has been tried much less convicted in decades.
This is getting tiresome, Mach. Please check your info or don't make 'authoritative' statements. Obscenity cases are prosecuted regularly. Here's a website with a full library of them.
...there hasn't been a case that has applied obscenity laws to text since the U.S. Supreme Court refined the test for obscenity in its 1973 case Miller v. California.
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. Because it is tough to prove and most likely the outcome will be acquittal based on the 1st Amendment. That is why cases against books written by the Marquis De Sade as well as famous cases against Catcher in the Rye are never brought to trial or ultimately lose. That they pick the Red Rose author of all authors who write similar stories is peculiar. Why her and not bigger sites of such literature? Is there something about her that they knew about and figured it would not be tough to beat? These are questions you should be asking yourself about this case.
quote:The Miller case stated that the basic guidelines for whether something was obscene include:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
[quote][qb]Way to parrot the defense attorney in the article, Mach. I'm pretty sure the heartless prosecutors chose to attack a poor, defenseless, innocent woman just for kicks. The statutes exist, if a crime by the legal definition occurs, they are duty bound to follow it up.
Like I said ask yourself why her and not a bigger target that would garner more media coverage? Let's face it prosecutors like media headlines when they win against a big target versus small potatoes like her.They didn't go after her for "kicks". They went after her because it was a easy case considering her "condition" assuming they knew about it. Which I think they did.
quote:It fits the Miller criteria; so, yes.
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. She is not shouting FIRE!! in a crowded movie theater or threatening to kill the President of the U.S. therefor it is protected speech.
quote:Hope this qualifies.
Not even close.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw on a side note why doesn't the Gov't go after music on obscenity charges? I can name half a dozen or more bands/albums with words that would give the Red Rose stories a run for their money? My guess is because other then obscenity is a tough case for them to win, the bands and their respective record labels have deep pockets to fight such a case therefor the likely outcome would be that they would not plead guilty to such a charge.But that is just a sidenote on why they chose this woman and her little site and not bigger fish like Metal bands for example or Rappers etc. Or Big authors.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'll considering that 60.7% of Utah's population is Mormon I would have to beg to differ as of 2007. The LDS Church even acknowledges this.
Simply being baptized into a religion at some point in your life does not mean you currently practice or even still agree with it. You mentioned being raised Catholic I believe. When was the last time you went to Mass, took Communion, went to Confession or any of the other practices of the faith? It's the same for the discrepancy between your 60% and my 41% stats. Yours is based on baptisms; mine on praticing members.
We'll since the MAJORITY religion in Massachusetts is Catholic I think he knew it would be counterproductive to fight the powers that be in that state if we go by your ideas on MAJORITY RULES....
Exactly my point, Mach. And the Majority in all of the U.S. isn't mormon either. So why would he attempt to impose mormon standards on the larger scale? Your original statement is still generlizing and bigoted.
There is no rule saying you have to go to Church/Temple/Mosque etc. to practice your faith. There is plenty of religious fanatics that practice their faith in the quiet of their home.
Says the man with no knowledge of the Bible...The New Testemant tells it's readers in several places to 'Meet together oft..' and 'Strengthen thy Bretheren.' Kinda hard to do from your lazy boy. As is the above actions listed in the catholic church.
That is just one city, not the STATE. 60.7% are still Mormons. MAJORITY RULES remember? I do find it funny & ironic that SLC was named one of the top 51 "gay-friendly places" to live in the U.S. lol
I don't know why you find it odd. I've already told you we don't hate gays. We disagree with the choice, but we freely accept that it is their choice. That TOLERANCE is why we got on that list.
Yes, I know the death penalty in Utah consists of firing squad beginning....
Do a google search on Boggs, Mach. It was before Utah even existed.
More when I get home...
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
True, sort of. The original article lists at least two other cases of text based obscenity prosecution.
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.
and
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."
This case may not set precedent as it was pled out, but it makes a good starting point for these and future cases.
They went after her because it was a easy case considering her "condition" assuming they knew about it. Which I think they did.
You think they did? Based on what? The Defense's 'we're saving face even though we lost' bologna? Yeah, that's objective.
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.
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 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."
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.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Simply being baptized into a religion at some point in your life does not mean you currently practice or even still agree with it. You mentioned being raised Catholic I believe. When was the last time you went to Mass, took Communion, went to Confession or any of the other practices of the faith? It's the same for the discrepancy between your 60% and my 41% stats. Yours is based on baptisms; mine on praticing members.
It doesn't mean your not faith neither. Simply because I do not have the time to watch or go to Yankees games does not mean I'm not a Yankees fan. Because I am, since 1981. Anyways I never said I was raised in Catholicism, just born into it. I rebelled against it when they tried to get me to go to religious school so I never did any of the above mentioned like Communion.
quote:Exactly my point, Mach. And the Majority in all of the U.S. isn't mormon either. So why would he attempt to impose mormon standards on the larger scale? Your original statement is still generlizing and bigoted.
Because much like you and most Mormons he cannot accept what others believe that contradicts his faith. He can't separate the two (Church & State) in his mind. I wouldn't think he would do it blatantly but subtly.
quote:Says the man with no knowledge of the Bible...The New Testemant tells it's readers in several places to 'Meet together oft..' and 'Strengthen thy Bretheren.' Kinda hard to do from your lazy boy. As is the above actions listed in the catholic church.
That is one interpretation and as we all know everyone has their own interpretation of the great book. Alot can't agree with it's meanings. But anyways those quotes you just said, for all we know they can be meaning to go have a picnic together.
quote:I don't know why you find it odd. I've already told you we don't hate gays. We disagree with the choice, but we freely accept that it is their choice. That TOLERANCE is why we got on that list.
I find it odd because Utah is such a Conservative state. And if you did not hate or freely accept their choice then you would not oppose such issues politically to supress their choice. As for why you got on that list, I would rather think it is because more gays are moving there and challenging the status quo and not because your Tolerant.
quote:Do a google search on Boggs, Mach. It was before Utah even existed.
More when I get home...
I'll look it up then, most likely when I get back from my trip and have the time. But nonetheless Utah does have a Death Penalty no? Where the condemned can choose their method of execution including firing squad ala Gary Gilmore?. Therefor you are shooting your own kind.
You wrote this post from work? Oooooo me telling your boss your posting Obscene things on the Internet lol jk
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: True, sort of. The original article lists at least two other cases of text based obscenity prosecution.
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.
By all accounts it doesn't look like the Gov't will win it neither since EA seems to have validity in their argument.
quote:and
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."
Yah, the only other case other then RR to be tried in decades and for good reason. They are difficult to win unless you get a defendant without deep pockets or other problems who will plead out. I hope McCoy goes all the way and they put the Gov't in their place and set precedent. The Gov't fearing loss might back down though because it would set precedent.
quote:This case may not set precedent as it was pled out, but it makes a good starting point for these and future cases.
Starting point or disaster if the McCoy case goes against the Gov't which is what I am hoping for.
quote:You think they did? Based on what? The Defense's 'we're saving face even though we lost' bologna? Yeah, that's objective.
Again you refuse to answer why her and her site RR? Why such a small fish and not a Big fish? Why not mainstream stories that depict child rape, torture and murder? Did they know of her "condition" beforehand or during the case?
quote: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.
No, we'll never know unless their is bootleg versions of her stories floating around the internet to read. But I would prefer to read it myself then take the Gov'ts version of things and make my own judgement.
quote: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 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."
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.
I think if you read the article it says or hints that child rape/torture/murder parts are only one aspect of her stories. All those aspects are available in mainstream books/movies etc. Again why not prosecute them?
quote:We may never know...
Thankfully.
Glad to know you pretty much made up your mind without even reading the evidence. God (pun intended)help anyone who is on trial for anything and finds you on the jury box.You would already pass judgement beforehand. Now that is scary.
quote: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.
The Gov't hasn't proven it case. The defendant merely gave up because of her "condition". So for now imo it is protected speech. The McCoy case is the real test if it goes all the way to a verdict. And if McCoy wins and sets precedent I wonder if you will admit that you are wrong.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love it when a GOPer who probably claimed family values and such rhetoric like other GOPer's who are politicians, judicials etc. get outed as a closet pervert and one who is judging a obscenity case no doubt is even better. "Oh, the irony!" and hypocrisy lol :
posted
I'll read it tonight and post a reply tonight.. going to work soon for first time in 2 weeks now that I am back from my vacation from Costa Rica...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
weather was ok.. rainy season.. flash rains but beautiful country as always... you should go visit sometimes where & see true freedom of speech where you can write fictional stories and read them or not without getting prosecuted even if it's total trash stories... www.visitcostarica.com
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recent Convictions Challenge Miller Test Definitions Definition of 'community' expands, includes Internet By Christopher Karwowski Sunday, Oct 12, 2008 TAMPA, Fla.
Two recent obscenity convictions have furthered the confusion of the legal definition of obscenity in the U.S. courts. At the core of the recent judgments is the definition of a "community" specifically when that community is based online. The Paul Little (Max Hardcore) and Karen Fletcher (RedRose.com) convictions, well known within the adult industry, have also caught the attention of mainstream media. An article posted on PC World addresses the complexity of the issue and its influence on webmasters and viewers.
Max Hardcore's recent 46-month jail term and fine, as well as Karen Fletcher's probation were achieved by the DOJ by using a traditional interpretation of the 1973 Miller v. California precedent. That ruling, which states that obscenity charges must pass a three-point test, has made previous, successful obscenity convictions difficult for the courts.
One point of that test requires that the material in question must be "the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."
The definition of "community" in that point is now under question when the creator of material and the consumer of the product are linked only by electronic means.
Community standards would, by definition, include anyone who would have access to the questionable material. In reality, the Internet community would be defined as global.
"With a website, you can't block traffic from another location," said Jeffrey Douglas, Little's defense lawyer.
Douglas is filing an appeal of both the conviction and sentence in the Hardcore case next week.
"This appeal will be of central importance to every adult website in the world," he said.
Hardcore's sentence has troubled many in the adult industry. The implications of Karen Fletcher's conviction, however, have been cited as having the potential to be far more chilling. Her erotic writing, posted at RedRose.com has led the 56-year old to five years of probation, including six months of being stripped of her computer. Her violation of the obscenity law was stated as "using an interactive computer service to distribute obscene materials." Although there were no pictures, the text was deemed to depict sexual molestation and violence that included children.
As previously reported in XBIZ, prosecution of literary obscenity has proven to be much more difficult than explicit images. The defense of allegedly obscene literary content, however, is often more successful when considering another Miller Test requirements: that "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Writing has a or attempts to create linear, concise thought. Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law told PC World "it's almost impossible for text to be judged obscene."
"The idea of a contemporary community standard of obscenity is an unfounded fantasy by the judges," Douglas told XBIZ. "Either we establish an Internet community standard, or we start over from scratch and sit down and try to define obscenity properly."
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The definition of "community" in that point is now under question when the creator of material and the consumer of the product are linked only by electronic means.
Community standards would, by definition, include anyone who would have access to the questionable material. In reality, the Internet community would be defined as global.
I'm not sure trying to achieve a definition of obscene from a global perspective would even be possible. Considering that many cultures consider any adult content obscene. That's supposedly one of the big bones of contention about our 'decadent' society. Our permissiveness in regard to media content.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not sure trying to achieve a definition of obscene from a global perspective would even be possible. Considering that many cultures consider any adult content obscene."
And many do not....
"That's supposedly one of the big bones of contention about our 'decadent' society. Our permissiveness in regard to media content."
Yes, you are quite correct. In almost every society that is based on Islamic law, ours is thought to be a "'decadent' society".
In most of the western world, ours is thought of as a bit stilted and backward.
It is, of course, your right to choose either belief....or neither.
Your agreement with the Muslims is your right........se'la'vie....
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are quite correct. In almost every society that is based on Islamic law, ours is thought to be a "'decadent' society".
Correct me if I'm wrong, Bdgee, but doesn't the Hindu\Budhist\Communist cultures of Asia also frown upon our 'decadence?' Numerically(at least if one is considering population), they outnumber us by far. If so, then trying to achieve a global position on obscenity must take that into account I would think.
Your agreement with the Muslims is your right........se'la'vie....
I actually agree with Islam on many points, Bdgee. Not most of the radical ideas that have been used to paint it as evil of course, but much good can be found in it as well.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And even though you like to believe Majority rules that is not the case always. If that were true then Mormons such as yourself are in the minority in alot of religious issues etc. Since imo the Mormon religion is a minority christian religion. Also I guess you didn't read my article I linked you where in Utah the Mormons are the MAJORITY but still lost the Obscenity/Pornography case for reasons other then the MAJORITY argument. Here try reading it then tell me otherwise: ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
