Life in prison for making porn?

[Sigz]

That's good to hear.

[El Barto]

I'll bet somebody a dollar that within 18 months he's on trial again, but this time in some small town in Pennsylvania. 

[yorost]

in china distrubuting porn material of any form is illegal and supposed to get punished though they rarely get punished by government. that's one reason for the conflits between chinese government and google. the major search engine websites in china are all under severe surveillance, many key words are sifted.

Walk into any media store in China and you'll probably find plenty of porn.  In every store I went to that sold cd's and dvd's porn was readily available, often displayed right at the front counter in plain sight.  Makes North America look like the censored  place.

[ConstantMotion]

Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.

I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Seventh Son]

Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.

I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because its easier.

[ConstantMotion]

Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.

I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because its easier.

That still doesn't make it right.

It's easier to download a new album rather than buy it. Does it make it right?

It's easier to jump off a cliff if all your friends are doing it, rather than explain that you don't want to jump off a cliff. Does it make it right?

[Adami]

He wasn't justifying it.

[Seventh Son]

Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.

I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because its easier.

I never justified it by saying it was easier. I was saying the government goes after those kind of people BECAUSE its easier. Why go after criminals when you have to actually *work* to catch them, when you can just pick on others that aren't really doing any harm at all? Come on, you can't really expect the government to put effort into finding dangerous criminals, now can you?
That still doesn't make it right.

It's easier to download a new album rather than buy it. Does it make it right?

It's easier to jump off a cliff if all your friends are doing it, rather than explain that you don't want to jump off a cliff. Does it make it right?

[Adami]

By the way, who's actually suing these people?

[El Barto]

By the way, who's actually suing these people?

The DoJ is prosecuting them for violating [a starkly bullshit] federal law. 

[Adami]

The department of justice sues people? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

[bosk1]

Nobody is suing anybody.  The DOJ is prosecuting people. 

[icysk8r]

Obscenity, like beauty, is surely in the eye of the beholder.

[Genowyn]

Obscenity, like beauty, is surely in the eye of the beholder.

Or maybe prosecuting people for obscenity is stupid and Orwellian in the first place?

[icysk8r]

Obscenity, like beauty, is surely in the eye of the beholder.

Or maybe prosecuting people for obscenity is stupid and Orwellian in the first place?

That too.

[7StringedBeast]

There was one obscenity case that was on trial ( I don't remember specifics) but they actually used google search records to see if the act was within community standards.  They had found that so many people in this town had actually searched for this certain act through google, that it was deemed within the community standard, even if it was taboo publicly.  I think that is an interesting tidbit there.  I learned this in my Media Law and Ethics class.  We had a whole section on obscenity and the Miller Test.

[Perpetual Change]

There was one obscenity case that was on trial ( I don't remember specifics) but they actually used google search records to see if the act was within community standards.  They had found that so many people in this town had actually searched for this certain act through google, that it was deemed within the community standard, even if it was taboo publicly.  I think that is an interesting tidbit there.  I learned this in my Media Law and Ethics class.  We had a whole section on obscenity and the Miller Test.

How do you do that? I'd love to see how frequent people search things.

[rumborak]

I would say that if you're convicting people based on Google search results, you might as well call it quits and decide the society to be failed.

rumborak

[Sigz]

There was one obscenity case that was on trial ( I don't remember specifics) but they actually used google search records to see if the act was within community standards.  They had found that so many people in this town had actually searched for this certain act through google, that it was deemed within the community standard, even if it was taboo publicly.  I think that is an interesting tidbit there.  I learned this in my Media Law and Ethics class.  We had a whole section on obscenity and the Miller Test.

How do you do that? I'd love to see how frequent people search things.

https://www.google.com/trends

[7StringedBeast]

I would say that if you're convicting people based on Google search results, you might as well call it quits and decide the society to be failed.

rumborak

No the google search showed that so many people of the community were looking for this certain thing.  Therefore it was seen as normative and not some obscene thing.  They couldn't convict the person because everyone else was doing it so it was a community standard.

[Adami]

So people can essentially be convicted on the basis of being different?

[icysk8r]

So people can essentially be convicted on the basis of being different?

Correct, which is why I have no faith in this country and its legislators. People ask me why I don't say The Pledge, this is one of the many reasons.

[7StringedBeast]

Adami, we are talking about obscenity LAWS.  Being different is not obscenity.  Do you say ignorant comments like this to just start something?  Child porn is considered obscenity.  I guess we shouldn't convict those "different" people who love that stuff?  Not sure who you are trying to defend here.

[icysk8r]

Adami, we are talking about obscenity LAWS.  Being different is not obscenity.  Do you say ignorant comments like this to just start something?  Child porn is considered obscenity.  I guess we shouldn't convict those "different" people who love that stuff?  Not sure who you are trying to defend here.

Dd you even read the thread?  A person's conviction was based on whether people in the town google searched the same thing as he did.  That's what got him off.  Basically if he was different from everyone else, he would have been convicted.  That's being convicted based on being different, and is completely wrong.

[Sigz]

Being different is not obscenity.

No the google search showed that so many people of the community were looking for this certain thing.  Therefore it was seen as normative and not some obscene thing. 

Being different is not always obscene, but being obscene is by definition (well, by legal definition at least) being different. Obscenity laws are such bullshit.

[7StringedBeast]

Being different is not obscenity.

No the google search showed that so many people of the community were looking for this certain thing.  Therefore it was seen as normative and not some obscene thing. 

Being different is not always obscene, but being obscene is by definition (well, by legal definition at least) being different. Obscenity laws are such bullshit.

Perhaps they are, but maybe they aren't.  Do you think child porn should be allowed?  Because the only thing keeping it illegal are obscenity laws.  Same thing with beastiality and necrophilia.

[XJDenton]

Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?

[7StringedBeast]

Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?

Like what?  The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution.  I strongly disagree with censorship of most things.  But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things.  Especially when it is actually harming other people. 

One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn.  Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing.  It's a really slippery slope.

I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.

[Sigz]

wtf? You seem to making both the argument that all obscenity laws are justified because some of the things they make illegal, and that child porn is only illegal because of obscenity laws. The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others. This can't be said for porn or many of the other things that obscenity laws make illegal (like normal porn in the OP).

[7StringedBeast]

wtf? You seem to making both the argument that all obscenity laws are justified because some of the things they make illegal, and that child porn is only illegal because of obscenity laws. The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others. This can't be said for porn or many of the other things that obscenity laws make illegal (like normal porn in the OP).

The whole point is community standards.  Different states can have different obscenity laws based on their communities and what is deemed a standard or not harmful to the overall population.  Is it loaded?  Yeah sure it can get abused.  But its either throw the baby out with the bath water, or let everything be legal.  Because if you make certain things legal and certain things not legal, you know some kind of logical explanation for why it is or isn't.  It can't just come out of nowhere.  That's why the Miller test is at least some kind of method to determine what is deemed obscene and what is not.  Using Google search records is just a tool to help in the process. 

Can you name one obscenity law that you actually disagree with and wish it was repealed?

So I guess my answer is yes, I think the obscenity laws are justified because it is actually protecting rights of people.  Unless there is a complete overhaul of the laws and the way they get written, I don't see this changing. 

Obscenity laws do not make porn illegal btw.  Pornography always gets protected under free speech.  Because it has been deemed over and over again to be of use to society.  Even if in some backwoods super religious area tries to ban it, it can easily get overturned in the court system if the people want to follow through with an appeal.

[icysk8r]

Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?

Like what?  The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution.  I strongly disagree with censorship of most things.  But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things.  Especially when it is actually harming other people. 

One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn.  Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing.  It's a really slippery slope.

I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.

If anything, the PROTECT Act does nothing but HARM children.  Say you are a thief.  You live in a society where you will be punished the same no matter what you steal.  In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar.  Both would be just as easy to steal, but one is much more valuable to you.  Which one are you going to steal?  Since you will be punished the same for both, you might as well go with something that benefits you more, that being the golden bar.  The same could be said about drawn "child pornography" and real child pornography.  Given the choice, wouldn't someone want the real thing?  They will be punished severely for both...  The PROTECT Act in my eyes has done more harm than good.

Another problem with PROTECT:
Okay, so all visual depictions of kids are illegal.  so the above scenario plays out.  Now let's flip that around.  Child porn is still illegal, but drawn porn is not.  Say we promoted drawn child porn (in an extreme scenario), and say that we encouraged pedophiles and the like to view drawn porn as opposed to the real thing.  They go to the drawn porn and there is less of a demand for real child porn, therefor saving children from being exploited.  But with the first scenario (which is how the law is set up currently) , there would be a higher demand for real child porn because of the penalties of drawn porn. 

Am I making sense here?

[7StringedBeast]

Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?

Like what?  The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution.  I strongly disagree with censorship of most things.  But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things.  Especially when it is actually harming other people. 

One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn.  Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing.  It's a really slippery slope.

I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.

If anything, the PROTECT Act does nothing but HARM children.  Say you are a thief.  You live in a society where you will be punished the same no matter what you steal.  In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar.  Both would be just as easy to steal, but one is much more valuable to you.  Which one are you going to steal?  Since you will be punished the same for both, you might as well go with something that benefits you more, that being the golden bar.  The same could be said about drawn "child pornography" and real child pornography.  Given the choice, wouldn't someone want the real thing?  They will be punished severely for both...  The PROTECT Act in my eyes has done more harm than good.

Another problem with PROTECT:
Okay, so all visual depictions of kids are illegal.  so the above scenario plays out.  Now let's flip that around.  Child porn is still illegal, but drawn porn is not.  Say we promoted drawn child porn (in an extreme scenario), and say that we encouraged pedophiles and the like to view drawn porn as opposed to the real thing.  They go to the drawn porn and there is less of a demand for real child porn, therefor saving children from being exploited.  But with the first scenario (which is how the law is set up currently) , there would be a higher demand for real child porn because of the penalties of drawn porn. 

Am I making sense here?

I say you don't make sense.  Here is why.  Promoting any kind of child porn at all in my eyes is wrong.  It encourages people to find that to be acceptable behavior.  Could some people look at drawn child porn and never harm a child?  Sure.  Same thing goes with rape porn.  However, if you start encouraging it, and making it easy to get to.  More people will be exposed to this type of porn, which would over time increase the amount of people who want the real thing.  It has to be strongly discouraged.  It should be wiped clean from the planet if at all possible. 

The whole point is not to make the people represented in the porn look like objects and not humans.  That is where the problems come in with porn.  When people stop realizing they are looking at two humans who are consenting and doing their job.  But that is a whole other issue with porn (one in which i'm not too concerned about because I think most people when looking at "normal" porn, can make that distinction.)

[icysk8r]

Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?

Like what?  The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution.  I strongly disagree with censorship of most things.  But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things.  Especially when it is actually harming other people. 

One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn.  Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing.  It's a really slippery slope.

I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.

If anything, the PROTECT Act does nothing but HARM children.  Say you are a thief.  You live in a society where you will be punished the same no matter what you steal.  In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar.  Both would be just as easy to steal, but one is much more valuable to you.  Which one are you going to steal?  Since you will be punished the same for both, you might as well go with something that benefits you more, that being the golden bar.  The same could be said about drawn "child pornography" and real child pornography.  Given the choice, wouldn't someone want the real thing?  They will be punished severely for both...  The PROTECT Act in my eyes has done more harm than good.

Another problem with PROTECT:
Okay, so all visual depictions of kids are illegal.  so the above scenario plays out.  Now let's flip that around.  Child porn is still illegal, but drawn porn is not.  Say we promoted drawn child porn (in an extreme scenario), and say that we encouraged pedophiles and the like to view drawn porn as opposed to the real thing.  They go to the drawn porn and there is less of a demand for real child porn, therefor saving children from being exploited.  But with the first scenario (which is how the law is set up currently) , there would be a higher demand for real child porn because of the penalties of drawn porn. 

Am I making sense here?

I say you don't make sense.  Here is why.  Promoting any kind of child porn at all in my eyes is wrong.  It encourages people to find that to be acceptable behavior.  Could some people look at drawn child porn and never harm a child?  Sure.  Same thing goes with rape porn.  However, if you start encouraging it, and making it easy to get to.  More people will be exposed to this type of porn, which would over time increase the amount of people who want the real thing.  It has to be strongly discouraged.  It should be wiped clean from the planet if at all possible. 

The whole point is not to make the people represented in the porn look like objects and not humans.  That is where the problems come in with porn.  When people stop realizing they are looking at two humans who are consenting and doing their job.  But that is a whole other issue with porn (one in which i'm not too concerned about because I think most people when looking at "normal" porn, can make that distinction.)

Do you have proof that viewing this type of drawn porn will make somebody take the next step to bang a kid?  I believe it has the opposite effect.

[Sigz]

if you make certain things legal and certain things not legal, you know some kind of logical explanation for why it is or isn't. 

The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others.

There's no reason to have community standards, because anything that should be illegal can be made so based on a more solid reason than just 'it's against community standards', which as you admitted yourself is loaded. There's really no reason for obscenity laws to exist.

[7StringedBeast]

if you make certain things legal and certain things not legal, you know some kind of logical explanation for why it is or isn't. 

The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others.

There's no reason to have community standards, because anything that should be illegal can be made so based on a more solid reason than just 'it's against community standards', which as you admitted yourself is loaded. There's really no reason for obscenity laws to exist.

The problem is, you need to pick what should be illegal and what should not.  How do you make that distinction?  What about sex dolls that look like children.  Where is the line?  I think community standards plus the reasonable persons and all the other parts of the miller test give a solid background for what we can accept.  Until the gov gets their act together on these laws.  Because technically the laws are very fluid at the moment.

And to Icy, I do not have proof of trends, however, if you think about the glorification of child porn in any way, it can definitely help to encourage people into thinking having sex with children is no big thing.  Because sooner or later, it's not the same.  Just cause I watch porn, does not make me want to forget about having sex with a real girl.  I bet every other person in this forum who looks at porn will say the same thing.  They'd rather have the real thing than porn.