story site shut down by fbi obscenity squad!

[Lee]

Wouldn't you agree that the idea behind most adult entertainment is to appeal to "prurient interests"?

No i wouldnt.

Two men having sex for example, how would that appeal to 'prurient interests'?

On the same note, two men having sex whilst cutting each other, yes i would say that appeals to those 'prurient interests'.

The same thing is happening in both scenarios yet one goes above and beyond what is considered a 'contemporary adult community standards' that is where 'obscenity' comes in to play.

Much like, going back 10 or 20 years, two men engaging in sexual activity was considered obscene to many, in the US and the rest of the world however, we have started to accept the gay lifestyle in to community standards, its a way of life, fucking children isnt, see the difference?

And how would you define "community standards" on the internet? The Miller Test was written with adult movie theaters in mind, before anyone even had a VCR, let alone the internet.

Irrespective of what The Miller Test was written for, its purpose is to gauge how obscene something is or isnt. Are you saying that we need to have different standards for different mediums? Why should an adult bookstore have a different set of standards than a TV show or a website?

If they all sell the same thing, give them all the same standard to gauge whether something is obscene otherwise, we'd most likely end up with different standards for gay sex compared to heterosexual sex.

You could, in reality, walk in to any courtroom in this age and ask which is more obscene, two men having sex or, an adult having sex with a child, im pretty sure which would get the most 'votes' in any 'community'.

Regards,

Lee

[MisterMark]

Lee, part of the idea in The Miller Test was to recognize that community standards vary from one place to another. What is obscene in Manhattan, Kansas may not be considered obscene in New York City.

So yes, I do think that the internet is unique and deserves different standards than would be applied to a local TV show or adult bookstore.

And here's the definition of prurient from MSN's dictionary:

marked by unwholesome sexual interest: having or intended to arouse an unwholesome interest in sexual matters

There are plenty of communities who would say that an interest in watching 2 men having sex (with knives or without) would be "unwholesome".

[Lee]

Lee, part of the idea in The Miller Test was to recognize that community standards vary from one place to another. What is obscene in Manhattan, Kansas may not be considered obscene in New York City.

As i mentioned above, The Miller Test has some flaws, this being one of them.

That being said, its the best thing that we, as adult webmasters, have to work with right now, the whole obscenity lawbook needs to be re-evaluated and, in most places, re-written however, until that happens, we need to be overly cautious about what we put on our sites and, as much as possible, apply The Miller Test to our sites content, as if we were in court.

Would you stand a better chance in court if the prosecution was reading a story about some guy fucking a 1yr old or, reading a story about 2 men fucking? That is basically what it comes down to, if you feel safe publishing stories about fucking children, more power to you for having the balls to paint a target on yourself.

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

Wouldn't you agree that the idea behind most adult entertainment is to appeal to "prurient interests"?

And how would you define "community standards" on the internet? The Miller Test was written with adult movie theaters in mind, before anyone even had a VCR, let alone the internet.

That is the idea behind most adult sites... not sites that promote fantasies of raping babies etc.

We can safely say that "community standards" on the internet would not support with baby rape.

Years ago writing or talking about the earth rotating around the sun was considered blasphemy and punishable by death. Things have progressed, we live in a different world now. I do not want to live in a world where it's acceptable to write, or promote in any way, taking the innocence of children through sexual acts.. period. You seem to think that if it involves writing it, instead of seeing it on tape, that it's acceptable, it's not.

One would think that someone involved in adult entertainment, as you are, would have a little more respect for freedom of speech. There's an enormous difference between writing about a fantasy and actually acting upon it.

Being involved in adult entertainment means being responsible for what you put out in the world, just as a story writer, business owner, car maker, home builder, etc. There is a liability with creating something and putting it out for the world to consume. Being in adult doesn't give us the licence to do ANYTHING in the world and not be responsible human beings.

I have no sympathy for people who promote CP in ANY FORM. I don't care of you draw cartoons of children being molested, make porn movies involving it, or write about it. Fantasy and reality often intertwine when one realizes the other. Without our fantasy, the internet wouldn't exist, building wouldn't be created, books would not be written, the list goes on. Often times people use fantasy as a springboard to what they will do next in real life.

I am pro freedom of speech, not pro CP

On a side note, if the government did overstep what they are legally able to do in this case then the laws need to be changed so they can continue to do this kind of work. It's a good thing.. but only in the right circumstances, such as this.

[MisterMark]

That is the idea behind most adult sites... not sites that promote fantasies of raping babies etc.

We can safely say that "community standards" on the internet would not support with baby rape.

The point is that, in many communities, ALL adult sites and adult entertainment would fail the Miller Test. That was the argument I was making.

And I find it sad that so many Americans now think that writing about an illegal activity is the same as acting out that activity in real life.

[Matt 26z]

The Miller Test shouldn't even be allowed into most obscenity prosecutions. I wonder if any defense has ever attempted to go down that route?

The test is based around a case where a guy mailed unsolicited advertisements, and one of the recipients was offended and called the police.

To me there is a huge difference between setting unsuspecting people up for exposure to the material, and offering it in a way in which everyone viewing is consenting (i.e., ordering DVDs, clicking through a warning page, etc...).

How can it be obscene to a viewer if he specifically asked for it?

The Miller Test is fine to keep hardcore porn off billboards along the highway, but the government is clearly abusing the test by having juries believe it applies to any kind of exposure.

[Lee]

How can it be obscene to a viewer if he specifically asked for it?

Good point, lets not bother prosecuting child pornographers, the viewers of such material specifically looked for it so its not obscene.

Yep, thatll work

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

my point was in ALL communities, a story about sex with a 1 year old would be considered obscene. i have never been to or heard of a place where this would be considered acceptable.

there are many communities where gay sex, str8 sex, bondage, and so on, are considered acceptable for adults.

The point is that, in many communities, ALL adult sites and adult entertainment would fail the Miller Test. That was the argument I was making.

And I find it sad that so many Americans now think that writing about an illegal activity is the same as acting out that activity in real life.

[Squirt]

And I find it sad that so many Americans now think that writing about an illegal activity is the same as acting out that activity in real life.

Writing, or making a movie, about an illegal activity is acceptable in our society. Nobody is saying that's wrong.

When dealing with material used for sexual gratification, we have a responsibility... that's my opinion. You are fueling the fire by providing content that caters to people who are turned on by molesting children, in fantasy or reality, and that's wrong. Making a movie, news article, or story, that involves those topics but is not meant to get people off is totally different, and legal, you know that :groovy:

[desslock]

I think she has a good case if she wants to defend herself in court.

This is similar to burning an American flag. Many people will react violently against the concept, but it is still protected speech. The issue is not about the subject matter, but what constitutes free expressioin.

That's why the KKK can march through black neighborhoods - they have the right, as much as it upsets others.

Steve

[Squirt]

This is similar to burning an American flag. Many people will react violently against the concept, but it is still protected speech.

I had no idea that erotic stories created to get people off fantasizing about raping babies was protected.

Do you think the right thing was done by the authorities in this particular case?

[gaybucks_chip]

This is a challenge that AJ and I talked about for several hours today (long car ride.)

Both of us were physically sickened -- literally -- by reading even a small segment of the disgusting story that was in the Google cache. And I was further offended to note that the story was even *categorized* in a section called something like "Diapers - Ped" which was obviously referring to pedophilia. This implies that the site had enough of such disgusting content to warrant its own section.

At the same time, put yourself in the shoes of a sweet 70 year old grandmother in Tennessee that reads her Bible for 45 minutes every day, has lived her life as close to Christ as she possibly can, and is as loving and nonjudgemental as she can be... but yet, someone raised in a conservative, Christian household, spending all of her life around others like her.

In trying to put myself in her shoes, I think that she might be as physically sickened and disgusted by some of the materials produced and offered up by some websites and companies that those of us here might consider to be "mainstream" porn. In other words, even though she wants to be nonjudgemental, she might be totally and completely grossed out by, for example, a lurid story about gay anal sex.

Now... i think that about 99.999% of the population would find the CP story repugnant and disgusting, and I'd think that few would argue that people benefit from reading it.

Perhaps only 50 or 70% might find the gay anal sex story repugnant and disgusting, but a smaller percentage might be grossed out, but recognize that some people could benefit from reading it.

My problem is... I believe in our Constitution, and I admire the first amendment attorneys who protect *any* speech... because they (rightfully) argue that as soon as we allow *any* of our right to speech to be eroded, it is a very slippery slope that is difficult to go back on. Already, Bush has effectively stifled free speech by forcing protesters to be blocks away from him in "free speech zones" when he is speaking publically, and nobody has done shit about it. Likewise, Bush has also used the Patriot Act and various War against Terror propaganda to attempt to stifle free speech and expression.

Now disgusting CP stories involving babies are a far cry from prohibiting political speech at rallies... but the First Amendment guys basically say, if you give these assholes the slightest toe in the door, it will be very hard to keep them from ripping the door off its hinges, and I can really see that argument.

AJ floated the idea of an independent board, made up of a mixture of adult industry people, ultra-conservative right-wingers, moderates, liberals, political activists, and whatever else so that it represents a reasonable cross-section. Of course, getting the genuine cross-section without cronyism and politicking would be impossible, so it would probably not work... but perhaps such a group could review and provide guidance to the courts or something, representing a cross-section of community standards.

Personally, I'm somewhat torn.

I am strongly inclined to agree with the views expressed by many here that certain types of speech, including that which creates the fantasy of harming an innocent child unable to speak or defend itself, should be curtailed. There are already limits to free speech... you cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded theater, for example... and so, in limited cases, we've limited speech without any harm to the constitution or our precious rights.

At the same time, I am concerned that the same argument that is used to ban the appalling story of the child being abused could be brought against, for example, gay sex or even some of the racier hetero sex if one used the 70 year old grandmother I spoke of above as one's reference point for offensiveness.

I think if it were my decision, I'd vote to prohibit that form of speech, but I would be uncomfortable about that decision and would do everything possible to very narrowly define that limit to avoid it being expanded to prohibit other speech.

[basschick]

chip - i'm glad to see you have spent so much time thinking about this. i have, too - but haven't come up with any answers, just more questions.

[SLS]

At the same time, I am concerned that the same argument that is used to ban the appalling story of the child being abused could be brought against, for example, gay sex or even some of the racier hetero sex if one used the 70 year old grandmother I spoke of above as one's reference point for offensiveness.

If this happened I would probably seriously throw up. I already feel pukey when such ignorant rhetoric is brought up in the arguments against gay marriage.

There is NO comparison between a sexual act between two concenting adults, and a sexual act between an adult and a minor, mentally handicapped person, animal, etc.

Anyone who makes any such comparison is a fucking IDIOT.

I don't really even understand what YOU are getting at. As far as offensiveness, people have every right to be offended by or disgusted by, or by the promotion/depiction of in any manner, sexual acts between two concenting adults, that they do not appreciate. But people have a DUTY to be offended by, or by the promotion/depiction of in ANY manner, the forcing of sexual acts upon the unwilling.

[gaybucks_chip]

There is NO comparison between a sexual act between two concenting adults, and a sexual act between an adult and a minor, mentally handicapped person, animal, etc.

Anyone who makes any such comparison is a fucking IDIOT.

Thanks for your kind words.

I don't really even understand what YOU are getting at. As far as offensiveness, people have every right to be offended by or disgusted by, or by the promotion/depiction of in any manner, sexual acts between two concenting adults, that they do not appreciate. But people have a DUTY to be offended by, or by the promotion/depiction of in ANY manner, the forcing of sexual acts upon the unwilling.

So, in other words, sleepingmen.com, which presents the fantasy of having sex with men who are asleep (and there are several sites that are variants of this), or the manyfold simulated rape videos/sites, or the bazillions of videos in which one party starts a sexual act on another who initially resists and says "No, no" and then eventually "enjoys" it, should be offensive to everyone.

I think you missed my point completely. I am totally disgusted by the sort of stuff that was posted on that site. I believe that, at some point, speech crosses a line and should be limited when it's so offensive that nearly everyone finds it gross, appalling, and abusive, and I'm quite certain that most everyone on the planet (except for the sick fuck that wrote that story) would agree that it is over the line and *should* be banned

All I'm saying is, by even contemplating creating a line *at all*, we do, at some point, risk the precious right that all Americans have to speak freely. And what the sweet 70 year old lady finds to be something that might make her vomit (if that's the standard we're using for banning speech) is very different than what we who are in the adult industry might make us vomit. So creating a solid criteria for speech that should be banned is a challenge, Hence the famous "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it."