Measuring Obscenity

In the US something is not legally obscene just because it is pornographic. It has to stray outside what the average adult in a community would deem to be acceptable for normal sexual gratification. The fact that the normal adult's view of sex varies from place to place is what causes all of the confusion.

Right now people use the number of adult businesses and they types of content they carry as a bellweather of sorts to guess what that community might deem as obscene. This is a problem in places like Oklahoma where such stops are banned and one could argue the two naked people kissing would be considered obscene.

Still, we all know that there is plenty of pornography in Oklahoma. The internet isn't banned after all. The same goes for other states that heavily regulate pornography sale and production. Porn shops can't operate in Oklahoma because there are no porn shops in Oklahoma.

What if there were a more accurate way to measure a community's interest and acceptance -by-usage of hardcore pornography on the internet?

If it was determined that it could be used to further the cause of free speech and reduce regulation on our industry would you share the zip codes of your subscribers with a independent organization like FSC. The zip codes would be compiled based on category. Therefor is a prosecutor tried to argue that gay porn is considered obscene by the people of Oklahoma City FSC could counter by pointing out 10,000 households paid for gay porn last month....

I understand privacy and trade secret concerns but no personally identifiable data would be shared and site-specific numbers would not be released....

Any thoughts? Is it possible? would it matter? would you participate?

There are already zip code lists for ' do not mail' when it comes to pornography and there is also a way to test if something could be deemed obscene in your local - The Miller Test.

If you dont have a sex store in your city, chances are, what you are doing in the adult industry will be considered obscene where you live.

Regards,

Lee

The problem is there is no way to factor in online usage into the Miller test. That's what I want to solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NashC81

The problem is there is no way to factor in online usage into the Miller test. That's what I want to solve.

---

Of course there is, its been used countless times already.

Regards,

Lee

awesome. What is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NashC81

awesome. What is it?

---

The Miller Test.

Extreme Associates, Red Rose, JM, Five Star, Max Hardcore, Ray Gun, they were all in court and the Miller Test is what the judges/prosecution were/are using to get obscenity convictions.

Regards,

Lee

Ok....I am not sure if you understand my point. Now, I could be wrong and I accept that....but

We all know that even if you don't have a porn shop within 15 miles there are still lots of porn consumers in that neighborhood. Most of that porn consumed will be from various sources on the internet. Now...if I, as an adult content producer, am dragged into court because I sent a DVD to this same neighborhood, I have no real data about the number of people who purchased similar content over the internet. I might have some data from sites that I work with but number would substantially under represent actual consumption of similar content. Therefor, when I go to court the prosecution will argue that there is no retail outlet and very few people use this content therefor it can't be regarded as normal and is obscene.

Now if I had access to some sort of porn index I might be able to PROVE that tens of thousands of community members are consumers of similar content and therefor it should not be considered as obscene. I've read most of the landmark cases from to 70s,80s, & 90s but am not as versed on the most recent so if such data is already out there than great, where is it and why isn't it more publicized?

This 'index' would be used to make the Miller test more accurate

Hmmm, I wrote a response to this earlier but must not have clicked "post."

I doubt this would be of much use, because there's really no way to verify where the surfers are coming from with a high degree of accuracy; geoIP tracking is only somewhat accurate, billing addresses for credit cards can be thousands of miles away from the customer's location, customers can use proxy servers, etc. Additionally, The prosecution will argue that without specifics on individual users (where exactly they reside, etc), there's no way to verify the validity of the data. (The argument of using porn in hotels is very different; one has only to check into a hotel to test what adult content they offer, there are no issues of whether the viewing is occurring at the hotel, etc.) I could totally see a prosecutor shooting a million holes through that defense.

Additionally, it could backfire; a state like OK could, for example, do what Utah is trying to do and enact laws making Internet-based porn illegal to deliver to OK residents. A high-profile case would be all the right wing loonies would need to push such a thing through.

The last point on this is that I suspect the FSC, which has between its board, it's attorneys, and its members some of the sharpest minds in adult, has already considered the issues of online consumers of porn. If this were an approach they thought they could use, I'm sure it would have been brought up in the Extreme Associates case or one of the other recent cases.

For better or worse, the Miller test is pretty much what we have to go on, and unless you can convince Edna and Elmo from Tulsa with an argument that is pretty airtight, I think they have a pretty good argument that the dearth of adult stores and other adult activity in OK is a pretty good argument that community standards in OK don't support porn availability there.

Cool....thanks for the feedback....it just seems like The Miller Test is such a stupid and incomplete standard...