What states are Anti-Porn?

[IdolKnights]

Meaning: Where in the US can you almost assure yourself an arrest for operating an adult website with proper docs and labels?

[Huskyhunks]

That's a federal issue. I doubt that states have any say in that. California seems to be a target for inspections.

Utah seems very intent on getting rid of porn. Texas seems to be hostile to it as well. They have no problem sending people to jail for stupid things like selling vibrators and what not but those are city, county, or state charges.

[IdolKnights]

That's a federal issue. I doubt that states have any say in that.

http://www.testicle.com/mikediana.htm

Mike Diana was arrested, charged and convicted for drawings in Florida.

At a state level.

[gaybucks_chip]

Some counties in Florida definitely have a hard-on for going after anything porn/violent/adult related.

TN, OK and UT are on the Hustler "Do Not Ship" list last I looked. If Larry Flynt won't ship there, I sure don't want to be doing business there But there are other places as well.

The problem is that you're subject to hassle by Federal, state, and local authorities. The incidents that have happened in Florida have, as far as I know, all been because of local prosecutors. The owners of AMVC.com were hassled by a local Virginia city prosecutor, who got them *jail time* for a zoning violation -- the only thing they could nail them on. And every week, if you get the Free Speech Express, you read about some local prosecutor gunning for visibility who is going after some adult store or producer or in some cases, a model operating on the Net out of the privacy of her home.

[Rimmates.com]

Idol, I don't know how reliable this list is, or how it got generated, but this is text directly posted on someone's warning page, so there must have been some rhyme or reason to its contents. It seems excessively long, but you will see at the bottom it gets down to specific cities and not the whole state:

"If you live in these specific states, cities or areas, you are not permitted to enter this site or subscribe to any services we offer:

Alabama
Arkansas
Hawaii
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Nebraska
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
Phoenix, Arizona
Northern Arizona
Northern District of Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Indianapolis, Indiana
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Cincinnati, Ohio
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Scranton, Pennsylvania
Memphis, Tennessee
Alexandria, Virginia
Houston, Texas
Dallas, Texas"

[basschick]

last i heard, there were 14 states. can't remember 'em all, but kentucky, tennessee, arkansas, utah and alabama were on the list.

[IdolKnights]

Rim,

Yeah... That looks like a list for "Extream" content like fisting with blood or horror porn.

ALABAMA: 350,351,352,354 thru 369
ARKANSAS: 716 thru 729
FLORIDA: 320 thru 29, 335 thru 342, 344, 346, 347, 349
GEORGIA: 304 thru 310, 312 thru 319
ILLINOIS: 609 thru 620, 622 thru 629
INDIANA: 467 thru 479
KANSAS: 664 thru 679
KENTUCKY: 400 thru 427
LOUISIANA: 703 thru 708, 710 thru 714
MISSISSIPPI: 386 thru 397
MISSOURI: 634 thru 639, 644 thru 648, 650 thru 658
NEBRASKA: 686 thru 693
NORTH CAROLINA: 270 thru 289
OKLAHOMA: 730, 731, 734 thru 741, 743, 746 thru 749
PENNSYLVANIA: 153 thru 179, 192 thru 188, 193, 195, 196
SOUTH DAKOTA: 572 thru 577
TENNESEE: 370 thru 385
TEXAS: 750 thru 799, 885
UTAH: 840 thru 847
VIRGINIA: 226 thru 229, 239 thru 246
WEST VIRGINIA: 247 thru 268

CALIFORNIA MILITARY: 962 thru 966
NEW YORK MILITARY: 090 thru 098
WASHINGTON MILITARY: 987

Same list but more defined with ZIP

[Rimmates.com]

Rim,

Yeah... That looks like a list for "Extream" content like fisting with blood or horror porn.

The site using that text is 2SCM.com [Straight College Men] and the content is rather tame and playful, so I think they are just being safe and saying anyone from these states looking for porn in general cannot enter.

I guess anything sexual is considered obscene in those areas.

EDIT: which by the way is BOGUS because anyone should be able to enter an Internet website no matter where they live. The restriction should be on operating the site from within these areas, not simply logging on from a home that you live in within those states.

[wnc]

alas, I am working in one of the forbidden zones.

I think it is just a politicial tool... but with USA GOVT not protecting the borders, under BUSH PRESIDENT, and now the states having to enforce FED regs, many USA states having been bleed dry of funds....

I think that Florida issue was for show. Keep the anti-porn in news before the new congress.

[citiboyz]

You guys are actually referring to the old "do not ship to..." list which mail order companies created years ago based on areas where law enforcement was targeting adult materials. I don't believe there are any laws on the books in any state or city that specifically prohibit the production and possession of "non-obscene" adult material. And if any laws actually do exist, they would be an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech because sexual expression is protected. Obscenity, however, is not protected. But obscenity cases are tough ones for prosecutors because they depend on "community standards", and that's no sure bet for them since juries have been known to acquit more often than convict in recent years. In the past few years, there have only been a few prosecutions of adult websites and video producers and those involved extreme content such as scat, urination, rape/torture etc. As time passes, what we call "mainstream" porn has almost become immune to prosecution because, as its acceptance grows, it gets harder to find a jury that'll convict anyone. So I think these "do not ship" lists are pretty useless today, especially for websites since you don't know where your customers are coming from geographically. Sorry it took so long to make my point!

[citiboyz]

And every week, if you get the Free Speech Express, you read about some local prosecutor gunning for visibility who is going after some adult store or producer or in some cases, a model operating on the Net out of the privacy of her home.

Granted, there's tons of news on AVN and XBIZ concerning strip clubs and adult bookstores fighting against oppressive zoning or overzealous city officials. That just goes with the territory in that business. But the cases involving video producers and internet sites have been few and far between. The last case I heard about concerning a video producer was a guy in St. Louis who was busted for prostitution for allowing customers of his website to pick the models to shoot for them, and that was plea-bargained away. And that was like 2 years ago. I think anything that's going on at state and local levels is pretty much just small-time harassment. On the federal level, the Extreme Associates case is the only really major one and that's been in court for 3 years now.

[chadknowslaw]

There is no protected right to _sell_ obscene materials.

however, the people have a constitutional right to _possess_ obscenity [but not child porn].






I just thought I would toss that little tidbit into the ring for ya'll to chew on.

I agree that the "Do Not Ship" lists are probably out-of-date.

[Huskyhunks]

I missread your question. I thought you were referring to 2257 and prosecutions. I did read the article. Well, i guess we add FL. to that list. When I read the FSC newsletter, shit seems to go down just about everywhere at the local level. Meaning, jail is jail whether it's a city, county, state or federal facility.

http://www.testicle.com/mikediana.htm

Mike Diana was arrested, charged and convicted for drawings in Florida.

At a state level.

[gaybucks_chip]

The restriction should be on operating the site from within these areas, not simply logging on from a home that you live in within those states.

There is a disturbing move where prosecutors are trying to argue that if the content *passes through* a prohibited state they can prosecute, even if no one sees it there. I doubt it will actually hold up, but it's just crazy... unless webmasters want to start learning about BGP routing for network traffic and establishing their own paths to avoid certain states, it's just ridiculous.. but it doesn't stop the loser religious zealots from trying.

[chadknowslaw]

There is a disturbing move where prosecutors are trying to argue that if the content *passes through* a prohibited state they can prosecute, even if no one sees it there. I doubt it will actually hold up, but it's just crazy... unless webmasters want to start learning about BGP routing for network traffic and establishing their own paths to avoid certain states, it's just ridiculous.. but it doesn't stop the loser religious zealots from trying.

Probably some US constitutional issues of Interstate Commerce there --

One state cannot make laws that impede commerce that just "passes through" their state.

Indiana tried to enforce a rule requiring a specific mud flap on semi trucks --even though that mudflap was not permitted in any other state. US Supreme Court found that unconstitutional.

Arizona tried to limit the length of trains passing through the State. Railroads would have to stop their trains at the border, split them up, bring in another engine, and then continue through Arizona. US Supreme Court found that unconstitutional.

If a state tried to criminalize stuff that just "Passes through" it would not survive the constitutional challenge.