RAW DOGMA                                                                       written by Nkrumah Steward
supreme court reconsidering obscenity standards

This is pretty interesting if only because it should give John Ashcroft fits. This is like the equivalent of giving him a pink slip.
The first thing that came out of his mouth after John Ashcroft was appointed attorney general was that he was going to rid the Internet of obscenity.
In the landmark case Miller v. California the Supreme Court ruled that "obscenity" or what is considered "obscene" should be determined by local standards applied by the communities themselves.
That way it saved the court from having to actually pin down what exactly is obscene and what isn't and allowed what some rural community in Arkansas says is obscene not effect what people want to see in downtown LA.
See conservatives love those buzz words, "Local community". Anything that suggests smaller government interference in their day to day lives is a good thing.
That is until they get into power.
Then not only do they want to be consulted before you plan on crossing the street but they want to regulate what you do in the bedroom and even how you entertain yourself in the privacy of your own home.
The only sumabitches that they leave alone are the gun nuts. And there are two possible explanations for that one. Either, for one, they stay out of their way because they tend to be gun nuts too or two, they stay out of their way because they are "gun nuts" if you catch my drift.
If anyone is going to put a bullet in a government official it is a man who has a zero file in the FBI with his name on it, a pistol under his pillow and a dozen complaints to the local police a week that the "black helicopters" are flying too low over his house.
Well letting each community apply local standards was fine before the VCR and the Internet.
Letting the community decided was a nice band aid when questions of obscenity were primarily surrounded around art exhibits featuring Jesus action figures floating in milk jugs full of piss and adult theaters showing "Deep Throat".
Well an interesting question has come up, now that the adult entertainment industry uses the Internet, cable and satellite television to get their product to the customer and their customers are buying this stuff directly to their homes and more importantly are viewing the product in the privacy of their own homes, what right, if any, does "the community" have to say what you can or cannot watch in the privacy of your own home?
What the Supreme court may ultimately have to decided when the owners of Extreme Associates make when their case goes to court is "If something is downloaded directly into a person's home, does the community still have the right to decide what its local members are allowed to see?"
Interesting isn't it?
Like I said, what is John Ashcroft going to do with himself now? If he can't shut websites down or toss people in jail anymore for looking at things that he doesn't think Jesus would approve of what the fuck is he going to do with himself?

same difference

porn gets the blame for creating a 7-year-old porn addict
I can only imagine the kind of person I would've turned out to be had I actually seen Linda Carter topless in a film taking a facial or Jaclyn Smith or Kate Jackson going at it on my toy box as a kid.

Pornography Is To Blame For The Lives Of Two Men Cut Short In Their Prime
At some point in time you have to deal with the fact that you will never fuck Carmen Electra, and at that point, a little piece of every man dies.


Source: CNN

Comments on this article please send to rawdogma@8bm.com

FAQ | terms | privacy | copyright | jobs | CONTACT © 2005 8BM.COM LLC.