Obscenity prosecutions are very rare. It very much appears, as Chie explains, that the charge is used very selectively. It may be that states make an effort to keep the obscenity carve out from being challenged.
This site appears to be a good source for reports.
Most other countries don’t have an incitement clause that even requires intent.
For the US, you only need to point out how someone’s framing of incitement fails to satisfy the imminent lawless action test. The gateway, normalize, desensitize, stepping stone nonsense that doesn’t even include intent cannot satisfy the test for incitement.
A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
the mr double case mentioned in the article was somewhat similar. He was accused of child abuse in the past. In his case he apparently wasn’t prosecuted for it (though I dont know for certain), but it was brought up at his sentencing for running mr double.
were there any recent prosecutions for obscenity that weren’t targeted at someone who had also committed other sex crimes? ive heard it said that they probably were prosecuted for obscenity because they couldn’t prosecute them for other charges.
Finland has been dominating the charts in terms of: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press for eternity.
I literally cringed reading that message.
Obscenity is a looming threat that can strike anyone who is a thorn in the states eye. One fuck-up and you get jailed for years and years. Worst legal system in the modern and civilized west.
Prisoners treated like animals and some states still execute their citizens. Hell yeah, brother.
Doll use is a morally neutral channel. I think that’s an accurate description.
Citing its own and international studies, Sexpo maintained that providing people at risk of sexually abusing children with a morally-neutral channel to vent their desires actually reduces the risk of child abuse. According to Sexpo, dolls may thus become a safe way of accomplishing one’s desires without subjecting children to abuse.
The bias of Sputnik’s writer is clear in their use of the phrase “by its own admission,” (as if the Finnish Sexpo foundation’s position were something shamefully confessed rather than boldly asserted), and also by the employment of the phrase “morally dubious” to refer to an inanimate object.
What is truly “dubious” is the argument that sex doll users will become jaded and then will experience an irresistable compulsion to “graduate to the hard stuff” and molest real children. This is essentially the same long-discredited “pot smoking leads to heroin” logic which adults used on my generation when we were teenagers back in the 1960’s.
In the US, the gateway, normalize, desensitize, stepping stone framing of incitement is impotent. Expression can be proscribed as incitement only if the expression satisfies the imminent lawless action test described in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The link shows above.
McCoy challenged it; Arthur challenged it, and look where it got them both: prison. I noticed that the McCoy case wasn’t mentioned, but Arthur was. Arthur is now precedential. Good luck finding someone willing to put their head in that particular noose – I doubt you’ll have very many takers.
Only one count was dismissed, but his case was remanded for re-sentencing, if I recall correctly. this could also be a way for him to re-appeal to the SCOTUS, this time with better arguments, like challenging the obscenity doctrine and its precedents on their face for being objectively incompatible with the truth or any semblance of fact, or the law itself.
There’s no shortage of scholarly law review journals criticizing the obscenity doctrine, and I’ve even been able to discuss things with a few of their writers. Lawrence Tribe is one that I tried to get in touch with, but it’s well-known that they’re an opponent of the obscenity doctrine, aligning their arguments with the sentiments of Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Douglass (who were staunchly against it).
Anyone who looks at the obscenity doctrine can tell that it was wrongly decided and wrongly upheld. It is anomalous, it is unjustifiable, and it is fundamentally incompatible with, if not outright antithetical to, the First Amendment.
A jury convicted Thomas Alan Arthur of three counts of producing,
distributing, receiving, and possessing an obscene visual depiction of a minor
engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1);
five counts of using an interactive computer service to transport obscene
matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462(a); and one count of engaging in the
business of selling or transferring obscene matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1466(a). On appeal, Arthur challenges his conviction and sentence. We
AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.
Dr. Ley is mentioned.
On the day of trial, the district court held a Daubert hearing on
Arthur’s proffered expert, Dr. David Ley.
This is amusing.
Likewise, the district court’s conclusion that Dr. Ley’s methodology
was unreliable was manifestly erroneous. Carlson, 822 F.3d at 199.8
Count 1 was reversed.
[T]here is no indication that the subject of the image in Count 1 is being forced
to perform a sexual act. The drawing is simple and utterly lacking in violent
depictions. Our independent constitutional review of the image charged in
Count 1 leads us to the conclusion that it is not obscene under Miller. We
therefore reverse Arthur’s conviction on Count 1.