In Texas a book-store owner has just plead guilty and got 13 months in jail for selling ‘obscene materials’. As usual that’s been judged according to ‘community standards’ - in this case Texan - and he’s going to prison for doing what wouldn’t cause any trouble in many other parts of the America.
The argument regarding standards stems from the difficulty of defining pornography and obscenity. Perhaps it’s the mix of sinus-clearing medication, rice-cakes and vodka I’ve been living on for the past few days but this doesn’t seem that thorny to me anymore.
Pornography is anything whose primary purpose is as an aid to masturbation. That means if you sell it in a gallery it’s art and if you sell it in a bookstore is porn. If there’s nothing wrong with porn there’s no need to argue that stuff can’t be defined as such. There is nothing illegal about pornography.
Something is obscene, and obscenity is what gets you sent to prison, if a jury deems it be so after excluding any sexual, simulated or non-violent content. In other words you can take your ’shocking’ S/M movie, edit out all the sex, anything faked (all the blood) and all the dialogue. A jury then has to decide if the remaining content alone is obscene. My guess is that in most cases there’d be little left and where there was, it’d be Donkey Punch.
Obviously this isn’t perfect and until I’m in position as ‘Supreme Ruler of Sol-3′ I can’t judge each case alone and make infallible decisions. You’re smart - so instead of just telling me why this won’t work I challenge you to improve on it.
The next time Congress tries to re-frame sex-law it’ll be us who they turn to as experts (again). So consider this practice.
PS. Thanks for all the kind words regarding my health. I’m so much better now it’s as if I killed and ate a newborn to suckle of its vital force and regenerate my… Er. Anyway, I’m feeling a lot better now.
Sam do want to throw us some linkage love on that story (if you have it)?
The community standard thing has been a mixed blessing. Before that supreme court ruling then things were much worse. It opened the door for the industry and late night reading we know and love today.
It also means that in what should be a much more enlightened time, we still have to put up with crap like that. Those of us with websites have to have some worry what some DA in an uptight corner of some country that sould have bigger things to worry about might think is obscene.
Sam, On the news tonight I saw a story about a new medical procedure. I think it was ABC. The docs put a balloon up your snauz and use it to bust the bones around your sinuses. The result is they open them up to about 1/4″ so they can drain. It’s a lot like the arterie thing they do and they claim it’s painless.
I wish that guy didn’t plead guilty. He’s got to take his lumps now. Love your blog, lots of insight into the industry.
Dave
Woo! You’re better! Then the goat worked…
If we’re stuck with obscenity law being upheld, then the first step is to modify it and your ideas for modification don’t sound half bad.
Problems: Defining sex. An explicit definition would be nice, otherwise we’re back where we started from. Other problems: At present, oftentimes it’s specific sex acts that violate community standards and don’t pass the Miller test. Excluding sex would exclude many of the specific acts the pro-obscenity prosecution faction wants out of sight. I doubt they’d go for it.
You killed and ate a newborn what? [Yes, I did and it was quite delicious.]
There is so much discussion that has been and still can be made about ‘Pornography’, ‘Obscenity’, and ‘Community Standards’.
I’ve been trying to wrap my brain about what I would comment about this. Like, what does obscenity mean and why should it be illegal to sell it.
I realized, at least this, were the community standards defined in that community before this man was arrested? Did he have some kind of notice or warning that the materials he was offering for sell were deemed obscene in his community?
I mean this is what I am just realizing here, and that is that …
The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were responding to the behaviour of the previous government. A government that, at the time, had no trouble forcibly entering a person’s home and arresting them, detaining them without charge, repeatedly charging with the same evidence, until they could find you guilty, etc., etc..
Given that we agree, that ignorance of the law is no excuse to avoid the law.
By the same token, the ‘law’ should not be capricious or arbitrary, (though we know it can be).
I think in this area of the law, a push needs to be made to require a community to define its standards (whatsoever they maybe). Likewise, we now have an environment that needs to define what the scope of the community is.
Of course, I may be missing many finer points of law, since I am just commenting off-the-cuff. And, I suspect that ‘Community Standards’ are, under the eyes of the law, defined by the 12 that are called to decide the matter. But, then I go back to the idea that a person is placed under jeopardy of their freedom, because they do not know they are violating community standards until they are arrested, arraigned, and tried by jury.
Or, am I missing the point …
ps: oh, and I am glad you’re on the mend.
Funny, I just got an email the other day from someone who had visited my website and looked at the collection of erotic paintings from ancient greece. they wrote (in all caps) “This is porn not art.” They didn’t really elaborate on whether or not that was a good thing, in their opinion. I would have replied to the email and asked, except that I have a policy of not responding to *anything* typed in all caps. I did kind of wonder how they wound up looking at those pics though, since it’s a slightly hidden section of the site that require going through several warning pages to reach.
Anyway, my point is that if I had replied, it would have been to effect that since I didn’t think the images were really much use for masturbation, they must be art. Art is generally not useful, and that’s sort of the point. If it’s useful, then we’re talking about design, right?
As far as obscenity and community standards go, I almost wonder whether either are even relevant anymore? I’m sure the physical community I live in would disapprove of my paddles, for instance. But then, in three years I think I’ve only ever had one neighbor in my house. I tend to find my community online or on the phone or on trips to the city. The memebers of *that* community, the one I actually socialize with, have no issues with my work or even my flakier ideas. I don’t really hang with the neighbors, nor do I care what they do as long as it doesn’t burn my house down or keep me awake when I’m trying to sleep. For all I care, they can bugger goats, set them on fire and slaughter them in satan’s name so long as they keep the noise down with a ball gag or something.
If porn, art and religious freedom are all legal, what do we need obscenity laws for? The only thing that comes to mind is violence or child abuse. While those *may* be obscene, the laws that prohibit them aren’t because of the obscenity, they’re because of the act of violence. As near as I can tell, the obscenity rulings are *only* used when trying to nail people for something that wouldn’t necessarily be against the law elsewhere. It’s a scape goat thing, and I think we oughta get rid of it.
Quinn - sorry for the lack of linkage. I was actually reading it offline. My bad - less print more net…
Wait there is news from non internet sources? What a strange world we live in…
BA - I think you made some excellent points. You’re working off the assumption that the only harm in any material happens in its creation. It’s a very grey area but you can argue there is material that harms viewers - ads aimed at children for example. I’m not comfortable banning it though… Damnit - I’ll just have to rule and decide based on my whims like any sensible dictator.
Thanks, Sam.
I would agree that there is material that can harm viewers, and your example is a good one. I still think that harm needs to be addressed by laws based on the nature of the harm itself, not ambiguous community standards.
Do they use door to door polls to establish what community standards are? One can’t reasonably assume that those who speak up are representative of the entire community… In most cases here in the states, apathy seems to be the rule. By nature, apathetic people don’t engage in establishing standards. Hence what you really get are minority, zealot standards, no?