GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Kimmykim · 02-11-2002, 12:12 PM

Miller is a subjective ruling based on the community in which prosecution occurs. The basic problem in applying Miller to the internet is deciding just where, how and who the community is going to be. A website that's produced in one state, hosted in another and processed in yet a third is typical of the business. However, the site can be viewed in any state. So where does the case go to trial? Who tries it?

The so-called community standards in the middle of backwoods, Mississippi are bound to be very different from suburban NY or LA, and things that people don't bat an eye out in a more sophisticated suburban area might cause a rural jury to convict.

So it's very important as you can see, that the first case to actually go to trial, is one that is defensible and possibly winnable on several levels.

First, you have the precedent being set of where the case may actually be tried. This is a key as I see it. If anyone can try a site for obscenity anywhere in the country, what's to stop those that hate porn from going to areas where they KNOW they will get a conviction and trying ALL the cases there? Ideally the ruling will be that the site has to either be produced or hosted in a location in order to qualify it for prosecution in that location.

Next, you have the contents of that first site. I don't think that a group of 12 non pornographers anywhere wouldn't call a beastie site, a pissing site, any kind of extreme site, obscene under the definition of appealing to the "prurient" interest. I'm not sure that any of those could be saved on artistic merits either ;)

However if the first site to go to trial somewhere is a plain vanilla hardcore site, then you've got the issue that every site that's as graphic or further out than that should get an automatic conviction based on those community standards. Yeah, they'll be a jury but you've got precedent for an appeal if the jury doesn't convict.

Anyway, not to run any longer with this post, just to point out some of the highlights of what's at stake here.

In the Seymour Butts case, Adam Glasser's 72 year old mother is a co-defendant, it should be interesting to see how that plays out, her on the stand talking about how a fisting vid isn't obscene to the jurors. Could be the make or break of the case.

02-11-2002, 12:12 PM
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Miller is a subjective ruling based on the community in which prosecution occurs. The basic problem in applying Miller to the internet is deciding just where, how and who the community is going to be. A website that's produced in one state, hosted in another and processed in yet a third is typical of the business. However, the site can be viewed in any state. So where does the case go to trial? Who tries it? The so-called community standards in the middle of backwoods, Mississippi are bound to be very different from suburban NY or LA, and things that people don't bat an eye out in a more sophisticated suburban area might cause a rural jury to convict. So it's very important as you can see, that the first case to actually go to trial, is one that is defensible and possibly winnable on several levels. First, you have the precedent being set of where the case may actually be tried. This is a key as I see it. If anyone can try a site for obscenity anywhere in the country, what's to stop those that hate porn from going to areas where they KNOW they will get a conviction and trying ALL the cases there? Ideally the ruling will be that the site has to either be produced or hosted in a location in order to qualify it for prosecution in that location. Next, you have the contents of that first site. I don't think that a group of 12 non pornographers anywhere wouldn't call a beastie site, a pissing site, any kind of extreme site, obscene under the definition of appealing to the "prurient" interest. I'm not sure that any of those could be saved on artistic merits either ;) However if the first site to go to trial somewhere is a plain vanilla hardcore site, then you've got the issue that every site that's as graphic or further out than that should get an automatic conviction based on those community standards. Yeah, they'll be a jury but you've got precedent for an appeal if the jury doesn't convict. Anyway, not to run any longer with this post, just to point out some of the highlights of what's at stake here. In the Seymour Butts case, Adam Glasser's 72 year old mother is a co-defendant, it should be interesting to see how that plays out, her on the stand talking about how a fisting vid isn't obscene to the jurors. Could be the make or break of the case.