If obscenity has multiple definitions, that is bad. Something that is not obscene in one community could be found obscene in another, and if you are posting material on the web which definition should you follow? Or should there be a "community standard" for the web community?

This is the biggest reason why I think "obscenity" should not be illegal i.e. you go to PRISON if you violate it.

Publishing or possessing or viewing child pornography is fairly easy to define and it is behavior that should be punished. Putting up images that are "acceptable" in New York City but can send you to prison in Pennsylvania seems absurd to me.

I draw the line at adults involved in consensual activities viewed by adults that want to view such images = OK. No consent [animals cannot consent] or children = jail.

BTW, there is a First Amendment right to _possess_ obscenity. The violation of obscenity laws turns on _publication_ of it. Which leads to further absurdity -- I have the right to possess obscene material in the US but someone else can go to jail for giving it [or selling it] to me.

Can I just be appointed President for 4 years? I don't want to run, and just for 4 years.



Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
No, thats the definition that the Bush Administration attaches to it.

There is a clear cut line between obscene and non-obscene material in my opinion and the opinion of many communities around the country.

Regards,

Lee