Time to repeal all victimless crimes. Repeal obscenity law once and for all.
3 Likes
The precedent which allows obscenity to be defined and excluded from the First Amendment is what will be repealed soon.
We just need to get liberal Justices on the bench. Vote.
3 Likes
Why do you think that Miller v. California is being overturned soon?
It won’t be. Which is why I prefer the approach of slight modifications of interpretations of law that might make a huge difference, considering lack of evidence that fictional depictions lead to real world crime. Lets look at a portion of the miller standard… “That lacks literary, artistic, political, scientific value”. The idea is to tweak the definition of political value.
If what we see today as “obscene” fictional works such as certain cartoons turn out to reduce crime, even if it’s slight reduction, we could argue there is indeed a political argument as to why such works are not obscene.
Animal rape videos, CSAM and real rape of any kind are heinous material that should never exist. There is indeed a political interest in reducing sexual assaults towards humans and animals as well as the possession if CSAM and real rape videos. If someone creates fictional “obscene” depiction such as 3DCG or cartoons , and if it becomes a substitute to rape photography thereby reducing demand for real rape images, it could be argued there is a political interest there. Because there is a political interest in reducing crime, whether it’s to reduce the viewing CSAM, or reducing assaults of any kind. If fictional depictions reduce crime, there is arguably a political value in that fictional depiction.
My point: If it can be indeed demonstrated that fiction reduces crime, even by a little, a political exception to the miller standard can, or might essentially legalize all pornographic depictions of fictional characters, regardless how repulsive it is.
To me, it is extremely important that we figure out what the impact actually is. It would be tragic if we came to the realization we have a law on the books that was increasing crime and putting civilians at risk. I believe a government in Europe funded some study as to whether there is a link between crime and fictional porn, they were unable to find a causal link, but I don’t know if they found a deterrent link either. If I recalled correctly, they dropped the proposed bill that would have expanded CSAM prohibition to certain cartoons since they cannot find a causal link that it would increase overall crime.
1 Like
As a recovering offender, I can tell you this; It helps me. As someone who knows my history, knows my behavior patterns, and who knows my thought processes, looking at porn of any kind vastly reduces my urge to have physical sexual contact with anyone. This holds true with lolicon. Since loli’s (cartoon depictions of female minors) are distinctinct enough in their features and anatomy that they are usually noticeably different than real children, but still feel like children, I can create a divide in my brain and can compartmentalize my urges, so i look at lolis and not be at risk to offend children. It is not everything, but it is an important part of how I prevent myself from re-offending.
2 Likes
The problem with the current obscenity standard is that there’s no guarantee it can stay limited to those types of depictions, ie those built around crime. Keep in mind that the state of Florida tried to put the rap group “2 Live Crew” in prison over sexually explicit lyrics in their music, in addition to record store owners and clerks who sold their music. Yes, they went after the clerks who sold music that the state didn’t appreciate!
Trying to modify current law on the issue is a waste of time. US Congressmen aren’t going to risk their political careers over what they consider “perversion” and nobody in Washington cares that much about the First Amendment if it means speech they don’t like will be protected.
The precedent set forth in Roth/Miller is perhaps one of the most baffling and confounding to legal scholars since their inception. There is no logical, rational, or reasonably sound justification for why this blatant double standard for speech pertaining to sex even exists, at least in a way that doesn’t run afoul the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
It turns the First Amendment upside-down by taking subject matter, sex, and placing it on a pedestal it has no business being on while declaring what would otherwise be matters of individual taste and expression forfeit purely because people may find it offensive and lacks value. The First Amendment protects both your right to impart and express ideas, opinions, etc. regardless of their value or how offensive they are. The right to have an opinion is intrinsically linked to the right to express or communicate it.This means that the government cannot criminalize speech on those grounds. Period. In simple terms, it’s not the responsibility of the man scrolling thru adult websites to care whether this video would run afoul the standards of say… the clerk at Safeway, nor is it the responsibility of a comic book artist or erotic novelist to pander to people that aren’t their intended audience. The obscenity doctrine does not comport with this basic aspect and, I believe, WILL be overturned. But we need a liberal SCOTUS.
The very idea that a book, film, comic, cartoon, drawing, sculpture, or painting can get you arrested and incarcerated for simply offending the projected sensibilities, tastes, or arbitrary standards of a specific community should ring the bells of repression for anybody.
2 Likes
The problem is, I don’t see us getting a liberal SCOTUS anytime soon. If Roth and Miller are relitigated, we’re likely to return to the old common law standard before Roth which basically banned anything that’s not safe for children.
I highly doubt they’d go back to a repressive standard. It’s not a matter of debate anymore - they were wrong when they decided it. Nixon and Congress purposefully appointed White, Burger, and Blackmun with the sole goal of ruling against free speech. They bastardized our First Amendment and turned our government into a tool to be exploited against us in their bloody culture war against sexual freedom and expression. Obscene speech IS free speech and it’s high time our SCOTUS smacks the gavel on this!!
I’ve been researching our current sitting Justices and their personal views on the obscenity doctrine and evaluating their likelihood of overturning it. Ginsbourg seems like our biggest ally in this fight, with Kagan and Sotomayor coming in behind her. I’m hoping Breyer would also be willing, but his dissent in Ashcroft v. ACLU is very, very concerning.
What did he say in his dissent in Ashcroft?