entertaining lewd and lustful thoughts stimulated by viewing material

[DainBramaged]

Court Strikes Down Federal Obscenity Statute

<snip>

The government argued, in part, that "entertaining lewd and lustful thoughts stimulated by viewing material that appeals to one's prurient interests . . . . is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private." The court, however was unmoved by this Comstockian argument, holding that after Lawrence, "upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest."

http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-741-court-strikes-down-federal-obscenity-statute.html

I did not find where this has been discussed today, but this article is truly not about how lame the Fed statutes are regarding obscenity, it's about the absurdity of the argument:

is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private."

Do the * minions have little trolls everywhere when personal freedoms are involved, trying to undermine every single aspect of freedom the Constitution allows us? What in God's name is wrong with America? Don't they get it, this faulty switch in the breaker panel that is history is trying to reduce us to a Pavlovian state.

Beware, it isn't just the big issues folks, it's little ones like this.

[Up2Late]

1. I found your post a bit confusing, so here's more of the article

I think this is very good news for all of us that would like to keep Church and State separate. I doubt it will be overturned on appeal.
:think:
"Court Strikes Down Federal Obscenity Statute"

In U.S. v. Extreme Associates, Inc., Judge Lancaster of the Western District of Pennsylvania struck down the federal law criminalizing obscenity as applied to a distributor of internet pornography:

"We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials"

In reaching its holding, the court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared state anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional. The court in Extreme Associates construed Lawrence broadly, declaring that in the wake of Lawrence "public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consentual, sexual conduct, even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."

The government argued, in part, that "entertaining lewd and lustful thoughts stimulated by viewing material that appeals to one's purient interests . . . . is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private." The court, however was unmoved by this Comstockian argument, holding that after Lawrence, "upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest."

UPDATE 1/23/05, 2:44pm, by Ian: Professor Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy argues that this case is inconsistent with existing doctrine, and will likely be overturned on appeal.

[DainBramaged]

3. "I found your post a bit confusing"-Huh?

but this article is truly not about how lame the Fed statutes are regarding obscenity, it's about the absurdity of the argument:

is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private."

I guess people don't click links any longer to read articles? Confusing, maybe to you. The entire premise of the Government's argument is not only confusing, but deeply troubling. That was my point, but I guess thinking about context isn't easily learned by some.

[Up2Late]

4. Confusing because of how little of the ruling you posted,

Your post made it seem like the opposite of what the ruling turned out to be. Not wrong, just confusing.:eyes:

I don't know what you got out of it, but when ever I see them using "Immoral" or "Moral values," if nothing else, it's a bogus argument, because Morality is a religious judgment. :think:

So arguing morality, is an argument for imposing one sides religion onto the other sides lack of/or difference in religion, thus, violating the First Amendment to the Constitution.:smoke:

I believe that is one of the principles that was used to toss this case out of court. If it wasn't, it should be.

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

[Cats Against Frist]

6. As much as I hate to say it, Kerr is probably right

It's waaaaay against precedent. But I am glad to see that some honorable judge with a spine is trying to make this a free country. I think that many of the narratives in pornography are sexist, racist, pedophia-ist, and severely dangerous, but unfortunately, I think it should be legal.

That's the thing about freedom that a lot of people don't get. It's "freedom to do something other people might not like."

[mongo]

7. "pornography; sexist, racist, pedophia-ist, and severely dangerous"

Were exactly do you get this viewpoint from? The MSM? The truth is that the biggest companies (Wicked and Vivid) put out some very couple friendly porn. Even LFP (Hustler) doesn't make degrading porn.

There is also no scientific proof that it is "dangerous". In fact, in other countries that have loosened obscenity laws, they found a drop in sex crimes. In fact, since the right wing hasn't been able to find a link on that basis (which was a previous assertion), the current fashionable argument is that porn is "addictive". Again, this is pure BS meant to foster a culture of sexual repression and shame on America.

[Marnieworld]

8. I concur wholeheartedly

Porn is so misunderstood.

[Cats Against Frist]

10. What part of "many of the narratives" can you extrapolate

to mean that I was attacking "all porn?"

I personally don't like it. And yes, I think it's addictive. That said, I'm sure there's some perfectly socially responsible porn out there, that, when shared as a couple can be spicy or whatever.

However, since most of it is XXXX SEE TEEN ASIAN GIRL SUSIE GET IT FROM TWO HAIRY AMERICAN GUYS AND THEN A HORSE XXX and the fact that people actually view and buy that fucking crap, and it DOES destroy relationships, and families, and create all kinds of whacked-out narratives that people get hooked on -- I'm not overwhelmingly in favor of it. And I'm no prude. Not in the least. I just have taste.

[atre]

9. Not necessarily

You have conflicting precedent at the moment: the firmly established First Amendment "unprotected speech" category of obscenity (Roth) and the explicit holding of Lawrence v. Texas that public morality cannot legitimate a statute scrutinized under the rationality standard. Like many other areas of the law, there are compelling arguments either way about which area of precedent should govern.

At the very least, Stanley v. Georgia certainly casts some doubt on the constitutional validity of the last dependent clause in that statute.

[fnottr]

2. Fundie hissy fit in...

3...
2...
1...

[American Tragedy]

5. God, I wish all of these moral authoritarian fascists would go away

I borrowed this from the comments section of the blog that you linked above:

free·dom n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
1. Political independence.
2. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
1. The right to unrestricted use
2. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.