It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by earthman4
In case you missed the whole rest of this thread, no one is talking about taking pictures of children. That is not what happened.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes they are. Both involve getting paid for sex.
Originally posted by NIcon
I'm no fan of the "Miller Test", either. I don't see how we can determine something is obscene, and thus illegal, AFTER the fact. As it is now someone has to produce a work and then it must be judged to be obscene. In my opinion the work becomes obscene only at the time of judgment. How can any artist, novelist, film maker, or porn producer know BEFORE he starts how to abide by "community standards" when there is no solid definition for him/her to follow. How can a law abiding person find out if something is obscene before they produce it? If Max had taken the time and money to conduct his own "Miller Test" (let's say through a Zogby poll) before he produced a film, would that have been acceptable to the court? Or would the opinions of the chosen jury take precedence? Or what if "community standards" were to regress back to the level of the 1950's, would that make everything produced since then obscene, and thus illegal? Are people supposed to just produce something and then cross their fingers and hope the winds of "community standards" blow in their favor?
Originally posted by earthman4
In America is is OK to drop bombs on children of the world.
It is not OK to take naked pictures of them.
You can't be charged with conducting illegal activities altogether unless you are being tried "after the fact". To my knowledge we do not have pre-crime yet like in the minority report, therefore we can only hold people accountable, legally, after the act has been committed.
Originally posted by BlasteR
The "morality squad" of America can't go after anybody if they haven't done anything. Porn producers like Max Hardcore are easy targets because of all the questionable material they put out before being charged. It's easier to describe what the guy hasn't done in his videos for crying out loud..You can't be charged with conducting illegal activities altogether unless you are being tried "after the fact". To my knowledge we do not have pre-crime yet like in the minority report, therefore we can only hold people accountable, legally, after the act has been committed.
Originally posted by BlasteR
This wasn't an attack on porn in general, but an attack on obscene/questionable material that porn companies claim is "art" or "freedom of speech". This will, in no way, affect the amount of porn out there.
Originally posted by BlasteR
Therefore, the argument goes both ways...
You have to personally define the boundaries of obscenity, as well as the boundaries of art and free speech. You can call anything free speech or art. But that doesn't make it right. Some people would call defacating on someone's face art. That's not exactly art that is appealing to most people, and usually the only people who care to see such material are already perverted freaks.
Originally posted by ts117
There are cheerleaders that are over the age of 18. Also, just because consenting adults use costumes to roleplay, doesnt mean they are trying to combine reality with their fantasy.
Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by jackinthebox
They wanted this guy bad.
A jury isn't going to find you guilty unless you break the law. The entire concept of making older girls look younger is perfectly fine. Videotaping it and selling it is also completely legal. That isn't in dispute here. Those are the facts.
Originally posted by NIcon
I'm no fan of the "Miller Test", either. I don't see how we can determine something is obscene, and thus illegal, AFTER the fact. As it is now someone has to produce a work and then it must be judged to be obscene. In my opinion the work becomes obscene only at the time of judgment. How can any artist, novelist, film maker, or porn producer know BEFORE he starts how to abide by "community standards" when there is no solid definition for him/her to follow. How can a law abiding person find out if something is obscene before they produce it? If Max had taken the time and money to conduct his own "Miller Test" (let's say through a Zogby poll) before he produced a film, would that have been acceptable to the court? Or would the opinions of the chosen jury take precedence? Or what if "community standards" were to regress back to the level of the 1950's, would that make everything produced since then obscene, and thus illegal? Are people supposed to just produce something and then cross their fingers and hope the winds of "community standards" blow in their favor?