5 ms·

But the point of the Miller Test is to define what obscenity is. If porn isn't obscene, then what is? I'd say porn pretty clearly fails the Miller Test, with t

by zbuc 15y ago

But the point of the Miller Test is to define what obscenity is. If porn isn't obscene, then what is? I'd say porn pretty clearly fails the Miller Test, with the possibility for argument of works containing elements relating to the prurient interest being granted clemency under the third criterion, that is: someone may argue that a work containing a subsection that may generally be considered "obscene" should not be considered "obscene" on the whole because of its other literary, artistic, political, or scientific qualities. So this case means that they have to prove that their specific pornography does not meet the 3rd criterion of the Miller Test to classify it as non-obscene.

anigbrowl 15y ago
Child porn, cruelty and (possibly) some kinds of criminal assault, ie material that cannot be produced without unlawfully injuring the subject.
- ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
  Your comment merely serves to affirm falsehoods which we, as a society, have come to accept without question. There is a good amount of "child porn" which does not injure the subject. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6139524.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6139524.html (Federal case may redefine child porn)(2006-NOV-30) http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/tuscaloosa_county_photographer.html http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/tuscaloosa_county_photog... (Tuscaloosa County photographer sentenced to federal prison in child modeling porn case)(2011-FEB-09) Both articles are about Jeff Pierson, and his case is just one of several examples that I can give regarding the misuse of child porn laws. What about bestiality? Is it cruel and/or illegal because animals can't give consent? We eat animals much more often than we fuck them, yet we don't care that they can't consent to being killed. What about those "bum fights" videos, where homeless guys are paid to fight each other for our entertainment? Is that "cruel", or "criminal assault", or "unlawful injury"? I agree that children should be protected, and that animals shouldn't be hurt unnecessarily, but the crux of the matter is that there is a big difference between the act, and the recording of the act. The former is illegal, whereas the latter is just information, which in itself cannot harm, and which should thus not be illegal. The bottom line is that we've been made to believe that there is no difference. There used to be the Iron Curtain, whose purpose was to control people through political ideology. Then we got the Moral Curtain, behind which we still live, and which consists of child porn, bestiality, and all things "obscene". Now we are busy constructing the Copyright Curtain.
  - ugh 15y ago
    I think it’s about time to start Shit HN Says. Did you really just say that the distribution and ownership of child porn should be legal? I think you just did. I refuse to argue vile shit like that but I have to tell you that it is indeed vile shit.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
      HN isn't allowing me to post my intended reply to you, because every time I do, the comment is immediately marked as "dead". Censorship is everywhere.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      I was about to read his comment with interest to see what claims could be made... then I realised who wrote it. I could look up a few of his past comments on an older account of his, but it's surely easier just to link to his personal site and let your assumptions take over from there. http://thaddeusquay.com/ http://thaddeusquay.com/ Literally the only person I have ever found the need to speak negatively off on HN, as opposed to either agreeing or disagreeing with just their opinions.
      - ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
        Please continue. Your comment appears unfinished.
vacri 15y ago
Given the popularity of porn, it seems to me that people have a pretty common use for it - it should fit the idea of being a 'useful art'. Porn is even referred to as being 'used'. "He uses porn". Fine art isn't referred to this way with respect to consumers. Someone wandering through an art gallery isn't said to "use Rothko" (though another artist may have their influence described this way). anigbrowl has also pointed out some things that are obscene - actions which intentionally injure others. Rescission departments in insurance agencies are a better example of obscenity than porn.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Where does the Miller test talk about "usefulness"? It speaks of "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value". Also realize the First Amendment is not talking about the "utility" of "art". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts Lastly, you really have a tortured definition of "obscene": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene
  - vacri 15y ago
    By 'tortured definition', do you mean "Perfectly fits section 2c of my linked definition"?
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      I realize now you are using "injure" as simply, "to offend". It is rare I use, or hear it used, in such a fashion. My apologies.
      - vacri 15y ago
        No, I meant actions intended to actually harm, physically or otherwise. Recission departments exist to intentionally screw people over - you make people pay for a product that you then do you best to squirm your way out of providing. Recission departments are "repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles" Given the popularity of porn, I truly think that if you were able to get honest answers out of people (ie no social pressure to answer in a given way), more would have a problem with the existence of recission depts than with the existence of porn.

by zbuc 15y ago

anigbrowl 15y ago

Child porn, cruelty and (possibly) some kinds of criminal assault, ie material that cannot be produced without unlawfully injuring the subject.

ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
Your comment merely serves to affirm falsehoods which we, as a society, have come to accept without question. There is a good amount of "child porn" which does not injure the subject. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6139524.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6139524.html (Federal case may redefine child porn)(2006-NOV-30) http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/tuscaloosa_county_photographer.html http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/tuscaloosa_county_photog... (Tuscaloosa County photographer sentenced to federal prison in child modeling porn case)(2011-FEB-09) Both articles are about Jeff Pierson, and his case is just one of several examples that I can give regarding the misuse of child porn laws. What about bestiality? Is it cruel and/or illegal because animals can't give consent? We eat animals much more often than we fuck them, yet we don't care that they can't consent to being killed. What about those "bum fights" videos, where homeless guys are paid to fight each other for our entertainment? Is that "cruel", or "criminal assault", or "unlawful injury"? I agree that children should be protected, and that animals shouldn't be hurt unnecessarily, but the crux of the matter is that there is a big difference between the act, and the recording of the act. The former is illegal, whereas the latter is just information, which in itself cannot harm, and which should thus not be illegal. The bottom line is that we've been made to believe that there is no difference. There used to be the Iron Curtain, whose purpose was to control people through political ideology. Then we got the Moral Curtain, behind which we still live, and which consists of child porn, bestiality, and all things "obscene". Now we are busy constructing the Copyright Curtain.
- ugh 15y ago
  I think it’s about time to start Shit HN Says. Did you really just say that the distribution and ownership of child porn should be legal? I think you just did. I refuse to argue vile shit like that but I have to tell you that it is indeed vile shit.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
    HN isn't allowing me to post my intended reply to you, because every time I do, the comment is immediately marked as "dead". Censorship is everywhere.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    I was about to read his comment with interest to see what claims could be made... then I realised who wrote it. I could look up a few of his past comments on an older account of his, but it's surely easier just to link to his personal site and let your assumptions take over from there. http://thaddeusquay.com/ http://thaddeusquay.com/ Literally the only person I have ever found the need to speak negatively off on HN, as opposed to either agreeing or disagreeing with just their opinions.
    - ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
      Please continue. Your comment appears unfinished.

vacri 15y ago

Given the popularity of porn, it seems to me that people have a pretty common use for it - it should fit the idea of being a 'useful art'. Porn is even referred to as being 'used'. "He uses porn". Fine art isn't referred to this way with respect to consumers. Someone wandering through an art gallery isn't said to "use Rothko" (though another artist may have their influence described this way). anigbrowl has also pointed out some things that are obscene - actions which intentionally injure others. Rescission departments in insurance agencies are a better example of obscenity than porn.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Where does the Miller test talk about "usefulness"? It speaks of "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value". Also realize the First Amendment is not talking about the "utility" of "art". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts Lastly, you really have a tortured definition of "obscene": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene
- vacri 15y ago
  By 'tortured definition', do you mean "Perfectly fits section 2c of my linked definition"?
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    I realize now you are using "injure" as simply, "to offend". It is rare I use, or hear it used, in such a fashion. My apologies.
    - vacri 15y ago
      No, I meant actions intended to actually harm, physically or otherwise. Recission departments exist to intentionally screw people over - you make people pay for a product that you then do you best to squirm your way out of providing. Recission departments are "repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles" Given the popularity of porn, I truly think that if you were able to get honest answers out of people (ie no social pressure to answer in a given way), more would have a problem with the existence of recission depts than with the existence of porn.