Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
So, which one do you think the government will fail on?
|
Possibly #1 for the reasons that Quentin already mentioned.
Also, something that was mentioned in the article....the defense was able to get the judge to go along with the idea that the community merely had to "tolerate" such content, not "accept" it.
Possibly #3.
There are artists with NEA grants who put a crucifix in a glass of urine and call that art. I wouldn't be surprised if several things like that were presented to the jury by the defense attorneys.
Also, the work has to be "taken as a whole"
I haven't watched the DVD's in question but I'm sure there's a good reason that the defense is insisting that the jurors be forced to watch all 5 DVD's in their entirety, and that reason isn't that they think these folks are going to be happy about watching 10+ hours of Max Hardcore's content.
And, law aside, what it's really going to come down to is do a bunch of people from Florida think they should be able to put a California man in prison to do hard time because someone voluntarily went to his website and ordered a DVD that some people will find objectionable?
The only people who were forced to watch this are the members of the jury. Anyone else who sees it chooses to do so, all of the performers chose to perform and signed releases and were paid handsomely for their time.
I still have a little faith in the American spirit.
