Should obscenity be legal?

[greenforest32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discuss

[RI]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

[courts]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

Actually there are many things wrong with that. Why should 17 year olds not be allowed to view porn, for example? I mean everyone knows they do, and that there really is no serious difference in maturity between them and the average 18 year old. Yet we put up this ridiculous pretense that they're the same as children and compel people with the threat of force and other draconian penalties to not allow them access to it. Now obviously there may be some situations where showing pornography to people underage could be construed as abuse or grooming but that isn't one of them.

[RI]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

Actually there are many things wrong with that. Why should 17 year olds not be allowed to view porn, for example? I mean everyone knows they do, and that there really is no serious difference in maturity between them and the average 18 year old. Yet we put up this ridiculous pretense that they're the same as children and compel people with the threat of force and other draconian penalties to not allow them access to it. Now obviously there may be some situations where showing pornography to people underage could be construed as abuse or grooming but that isn't one of them.

I mostly meant in the sale of such goods or at movie theaters or public places. You can't really physically stop people from the act of viewing necessarily, though such shouldn't receive condonation either. Also, any hard age restriction on anything could be argued against using that logic; the difference between any one year and the next is usually not very dramatic, but if you use that logic to lower it (or raise it for that matter), you could arbitrarily go as high or low as you want, because each step wouldn't be much more impactful than the last. At some point, it has to be arbitrary, if only because no two people are exactly alike developmentally, to which some manner of discretion must be given to their parents.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

Urban legend, don't exist. No law enforcement agency in the world has ever reported finding one.

[courts]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

Urban legend, don't exist. No law enforcement agency in the world has ever reported finding one.

Actually there was at least one case involving a Russian ring awhile back.

[courts]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

Actually there are many things wrong with that. Why should 17 year olds not be allowed to view porn, for example? I mean everyone knows they do, and that there really is no serious difference in maturity between them and the average 18 year old. Yet we put up this ridiculous pretense that they're the same as children and compel people with the threat of force and other draconian penalties to not allow them access to it. Now obviously there may be some situations where showing pornography to people underage could be construed as abuse or grooming but that isn't one of them.

I mostly meant in the sale of such goods or at movie theaters or public places. You can't really physically stop people from the act of viewing necessarily, though such shouldn't receive condonation either. Also, any hard age restriction on anything could be argued against using that logic; the difference between any one year and the next is usually not very dramatic, but if you use that logic to lower it (or raise it for that matter), you could arbitrarily go as high or low as you want, because each step wouldn't be much more impactful than the last. At some point, it has to be arbitrary, if only because no two people are exactly alike developmentally, to which some manner of discretion must be given to their parents.

And therein lies one of the inherent problems of any age limit. And really there's a lot psychological studies which point to teenagers being about as competent as adults. There might be some decline in that now compared to say, the 1970s but that isn't enough to justify all the restrictions we keep imposing on them because they're judged too immature while simultaneously demanding they do 'adult time for adult crime' or some such nonsense (of course, that's probably a big reason for that decline). We have a problem in this country.

[Link]

I think a lot of people are not familiar with obscenity laws.  The SCOTUS has ruled that the definition of obscenity is pretty narrow.  The definition has some murky parts but it's pretty difficult to produce any form of speech that would be banned purely because it is "obscene."  For those of you that so eloquently said "F' obsenity laws" is there something you have been prevented from accessing?  If so it must be some pretty twisted stuff.  So no the obscenity laws in the US are fine as is.

[Хahar 🤔]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

Urban legend, don't exist. No law enforcement agency in the world has ever reported finding one.

Actually there was at least one case involving a Russian ring awhile back.

Moral issues aside, a snuff film seems like it would be inconvenient to make. You would have to get it done in one take or not at all.

[Platypus]

Legal, yes, but broadly unpracticed.

[Free Palestine]

Snuff films don't exist?  Somebody hasn't been to 4chan, or on the deep web.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Legal, unless its material is of genuine depictions of otherwise illegal actions, eg child pornography, rape, torture, murder (snuff films), etc. There isn't anything wrong with instituting warning mandates and restrictions on its audience though, such as by age.

[angus]

What do we mean?  Like shooting the finger at a cop?  Shouting into a megaphone that the President an asshole as he steps off Marine One?  Wearing a T-shirt that says, "somebody please give me a blow job?"  That sort of thing?

I voted legal. 

Not that I'd want my child to witness any of that, but the alternative (growing up in a land where speech is arbitrarily censored), seems far worse. 

[Link]

What do we mean?  Like shooting the finger at a cop?  Shouting into a megaphone that the President an asshole as he steps off Marine One?  Wearing a T-shirt that says, "somebody please give me a blow job?"  That sort of thing?

I voted legal. 

Not that I'd want my child to witness any of that, but the alternative (growing up in a land where speech is arbitrarily censored), seems far worse. 

You don't have to worry.  As far as I know none of that stuff is illegal on the basis of obscenity.  Like I said you have to do something pretty twisted to get slapped with an obscenity charge that sticks.  Most of the posters on this thread have no idea what the threshold really is.  Sufficed to say it is pretty high.  You would never accidently cross the line.

[Free Palestine]

What do we mean?  Like shooting the finger at a cop?  Shouting into a megaphone that the President an asshole as he steps off Marine One?  Wearing a T-shirt that says, "somebody please give me a blow job?"  That sort of thing?

I voted legal. 

Not that I'd want my child to witness any of that, but the alternative (growing up in a land where speech is arbitrarily censored), seems far worse. 

You don't have to worry.  As far as I know none of that stuff is illegal on the basis of obscenity.  Like I said you have to do something pretty twisted to get slapped with an obscenity charge that sticks.  Most of the posters on this thread have no idea what the threshold really is.  Sufficed to say it is pretty high.  You would never accidently cross the line.

Ah yes, obscenity is like what the fascists put Max Hardcore away for.

[Link]

What do we mean?  Like shooting the finger at a cop?  Shouting into a megaphone that the President an asshole as he steps off Marine One?  Wearing a T-shirt that says, "somebody please give me a blow job?"  That sort of thing?

I voted legal. 

Not that I'd want my child to witness any of that, but the alternative (growing up in a land where speech is arbitrarily censored), seems far worse. 

You don't have to worry.  As far as I know none of that stuff is illegal on the basis of obscenity.  Like I said you have to do something pretty twisted to get slapped with an obscenity charge that sticks.  Most of the posters on this thread have no idea what the threshold really is.  Sufficed to say it is pretty high.  You would never accidently cross the line.

Ah yes, obscenity is like what the fascists put Max Hardcore away for.

That is a very broad definition of the word fascist... even for an internet forum.

Refresh my memory.  Is Max Hardcore the pornographer that would dress teenage girls up as even younger prepubescent girls and then fist f**k them while urinating in their mouths while he attempted to gag them with his penis and make them vomit into a bowl?  Is that the Max Hardcore we are talking about?  Or is it the Max Hardcore that shoved speculums up teenage girls butts so he could video tape their colons?  Was it that Max Hardcore?

Like I said you have to be pretty twisted to get slapped with an obscenity charge that sticks.  Max made dozens perhaps hundreds of porn video tapes.  He didn't just do his little routine once or twice.  He was a very prolific smut peddler.  Honestly if this is the type of behavior one must engage in to raise the ire of the Federal Government I'm going to hazard a guess and say 99.999% of Americans have nothing to worry about.  Dressing up teenagers in school girl uniforms and pigtails and making them do "baby talk" while I video tape sticking a speculum up their ass and piss in their mouth isn't something I see as an inalienable right.  I personally would never have thought to come up with a law making what Max did illegal, but at the same time I'm not going to go on a crusade to get this rather obscure law changed just because one seriously twisted guy in a generation gets house arrest for doing this type of thing.

The internet is full of videos of well endowed young black men taking turns ejaculating in the anuses and mouths of white suburban MILFs.  If this doesn't satisfy your masturbatory needs then there is something wrong (and it's not the laws of the country).

[tpfkaw]

It's a bit much for Ziggy to be complaining about someone's sexual tastes, all things considered.

[Phony Moderate]

It's a bit much for Ziggy to be complaining about someone's sexual tastes, all things considered.

Link is Einzige?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a bit much for Ziggy to be complaining about someone's sexual tastes, all things considered.

Link is Einzige?

Not unless he's moved.

[Link]

It's a bit much for Ziggy to be complaining about someone's sexual tastes, all things considered.

Link is Einzige?

Thanks for filling in the missing piece of the puzzle.  I was wondering why that guy all of a sudden started following me around the forum.  It was disturbing that he had a pet name for me as well.  Once he started saying he had intimate knowledge of my sexual tastes I was totally creeped out.

Wormy I am not your boyfriend "Ziggy"!  Whoever that is.

[Simfan34]

We tolerate it too much these days, but even I think it has a use... rarely.

[dead0man]

Snuff films don't exist?  Somebody hasn't been to 4chan, or on the deep web.

Videos of people dying certainly exist, killing people for no purpose other than selling a "snuff film" doesn't exist.