[Pug]

Mal –
First of all, again you’ve neglected to actually cite a story or it’s actual offense. You’re the one who brought this up, You’re the one that keeps claiming you have these absolute standards, I really feel it’s your responsibility. We’ve gone back and forth at least three times now and for all the rhetoric you have yet to actually cite a story.

Secondly – are we going to go back and forth between the ethics and the legality or are you going to pick a premise for why you feel that way and stick to it? This is rapidly becoming of those flat-earth society arguments where you beat back nine arguments and the next post refers to none of them and goes on as if some entirely different premise was what the whole thing was about all along.

Thirdly – Again, your stating legal concepts without context. Yes, the Miller test cites “Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Now – go back and look at obscenity cases.

And realize how hard it is to get a court to say a work “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”. Yes – by the standards of first amendment law, Brawna stories are going to qualify as having literary and artistic value.

There may be some work in Brawna that doesn’t meet that standard – I don’t know, because we’re still talking in generality and principles. As long as we’re talking generalities and principles, the guiding principle is the first amendment, and yes, I’m going to advocate on the side of inclusion.

Lastly – At this point, either you’re having this argument here because you haven’t talked to Lingster, or because you have. If you haven’t, why not, and if you have – well, I’ve gotten the impression Lingster and I don’t exactly agree on a lot politically; if you’ve gone so far to the right that Lingster and I are in agreement, you might want to look over your premises.

Pug

[Pug]

I missed your second post, but only have a few things I can really respond to now that I’ve seen it.

A) No, actually, I do *not* know what stories you are citing. Unless you are referring to McInvictus, in which case darn straight I disagree with your assessment.

B) I know of no legal authority that would characterize the Ashcroft case in the way you describe it. Among other thing it clearly delineated that a description of something that would be considered obscene if done in reality is not in and of itself obscene.

C) Please don’t take it on yourself to speak for our founding fathers. Anyone that thinks they were paragons of virtue or absolutists in their principles frankly has not studied them. They ranged from Preachers to scientists to, well, Ben Franklin. Trying to claim ‘they’ would agree with you *or* me is evidence of a failure of our defense of our opinions.

Pug

[None]

Pug “A) No, actually, I do *not* know what stories you are citing. Unless you are referring to McInvictus, in which case darn straight I disagree with your assessment.”

Not referring to McInvictus (I don’t know who that author is or his/her materials). My OPINION of stories that I find troubling are two of JIMPS latest featuring a 12 year old character involved in sadomaschist elements.

Pug ” I know of no legal authority that would characterize the Ashcroft case in the way you describe it.”

First, stop depending on wikipedia. Second, really? No legal authority at all? Hmm.. funny, because “The CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. “is CITED in the case itself. The law was challenged as being overly broad as it pertains to work of literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Furthermore, the entire point of the case against the CPPA was that it was overbroad, failed to utilized the Miller Test, and (quoting AGAIN from the case) “CPPA is inconsistent with Miller…….Materials need not appeal to the prurient interest under the CPPA, which proscribes any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented.” Therefore, the problem with the CPPA was because it didn’t use the Miller Test as judgment. It most certainly did NOT make Miller obsolete.

Because it was overbroad, the CPPA was challenged because it would make illegal ANY depiction of a sexual act illegal (in a work possessing literary or artistic merit) even if it employed persons who were 18 (the prupose behind sexual EXPLOITATION laws, was to prevent damages to actual minors). The key points here remain the usage of adults to depict minors in materials with SERIOUS literary or artistic merrit. In it’s case it cited academy award winning movies and Shakespeare, NOT a FETISH site which wholly and unabashedly appeals to prurient interest.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-795

So, to recap Ashcroft vs. Free Speech

1. The CPPA was overbroad in that it made ANY visual depiction of a sexual act illegal by FAILING to utilize the Miller Test as a standard.

2. Was found overbroad because it deemed ARTISITC works, which may have possessed a brief scene featuring obscenity as illegal. (In contrast to Miller which considers the work overall using the three parameters noted.)

3. It contrasted with existing sexual exploitation laws meant to protect visual depictions utilizing minors. Simply put, it attacked movies such as American Beauty (possessing valid artistic merit) which included a visual depiction of a sexual act (this is not taking the work as whole) even though it used actors 18 and up and no minors (necessary for a violation on sexual exploitation laws) were injured.

4. Lastly, it did not revoke the standard for “obscene” as used in Miller. Miller STILL stands and requires works to be taken as whole.

(Again)

5. Technically, all of the stories on Brawna are obscene (indecent it a better word edited 4/18/11) according to the Miller test but acceptable in much the same way as ADULT porn (videos and images featuring ADULTS) is acceptable for passing legal challenges. Take away that ADULT aspect, inject it with underage characters (in which videos and images and AREN’T acceptable), and you have a SERIOUS contender for hard and certain literary violations of obscenity laws in the second example.

Pug: “C) Please don’t take it on yourself to speak for our founding fathers. Anyone that thinks they were paragons of virtue or absolutists in their principles frankly has not studied them.”

CAREFULLY reread what I wrote. I never claimed the Founding Father’s were “paragons” of moral virtue. (You’re inserting words) I said they saw moral virtues as necessary to form law and self governance of the individual to lesson reliance on the state.

Even they admitted that men were not angels (as I stated). However, the Constitution was an ABSOLUTIST idea in that they were ABSOLUTE in asserting that freedoms come from God and not the hand of man. If you want to argue this, then you are poorly informed and ignorant of both the history and culture of colonial America and the forces which shaped their world view. If you want to understand this, pick up works by A.J. Languth, Benson Bobrick, Gordon S. Wood, and Bernard Bailynn which describes these forces, especially following the Great Awakening which influenced their concepts of limit government and the need for personal moral action. (M.A. in History here).

You TOTALLY missed my point here. Simply put, the Founding Fathers, while flawed as all humans, possessed moral standards, lived in a society that sought to enforce moral standards, and sought to make moral standards an aspect of law when they created the structures of government. Morals say, “don’t kill”. Morals say “don’t steal”. Morals say “don’t lie or cheat” which becomes the basis of all law to enforce moral infractions against other people.

The Founding Fathers, certainly had their moral frailties, however that did NOT stop their wish of having moral codes play a foundation in law. Of that, they possessed ABSOLUTE certainty. If you don’t believe that read books on Colonial society and examine how laws were shaped by moral codes and societal standards. Hell, that continues TODAY. If you believe that the Constitution doesn’t have the ability to legislate free speech related to facets of morality then you REALLY need to delve into history by examining the experts in the field which I have cited.

THAT’S what I meant Pug. That’s simple knowledge.

Pug: “Yes – by the standards of first amendment law, Brawna stories are going to qualify as having literary and artistic value.”

I disagree with you for the points I stated above. Are most of the stories legally acceptable, yes. Do they possess artistic and literary value when viewed through Miller, most likely no, but still acceptable and therefore not in violation with law based on my understanding. Others, I believe, and in my opinion, are questionable and may not pass as easily. THOSE stories are the ones I wish we could address. That ALL my opinion is stating.

In the end, thanks for the discussion, feel free to continue if you’d like and if I still don’t make any sense to you, well, then I guess that’s where the conversation ends on my end and I move along.

[TheGov]

So whatever DID happen to Ernest Hemmingway? Or did we by chance stray from the original topic? :S

[blah8884]

Unfortunately, Hemmingway has kicked the bucket :/

And, on the side note, since … I didn’t think it would amount to that much debate (which isn’t really a bad thing), well … I just say the age of the characters should be relative to the setting and the environment (I haven’t actually read most of the stories that captr pointed to).

At any rate… so… uhm … any updates to the aforementioned authors?

[Pug]

Final Offtopic post.
ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.
FREE SPEECH COALITION et al

You know, it’s always possible I’m reading the wrong legal experts. So I looked the case itself up.

I’m sorry Mal, basic English reading of Paragraph (3) of the decision completely undermines your argument. Most interesting “Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all.”

That’s the decision itself. Virtual Images represent no underlying crime. Given a court history where law clerk addenda made corporations ‘citizens’, I think it’s a safe assumption that if imagery doesn’t than words don’t either.

As the law stands, there would need to be an underlying crime for this to become actionable.

The ethical call? Well, ultimately that is Lingsters (to decide if a story otherwise suitable can be rejected based on character age) and yours (If you want your story in the same archive – Oh, yeah, I’d forgotten this actually *is* on topic.).

Personally I think wringing your hands over this ethical decision is on par with a writer worrying that his book will be stored in a library that also lets people check out “Lolita”, “Catcher in the Rye”, and “Mein Kampf”, and I think ceding this argument to you suppresses stories I dislike, but which are considerably less obscene than “Mein Kampf”, available in any competent library.

Publish. Or don’t.

Pug

[None]

I already answered this paragraph 3 and what you cited supports my argument.

The case is about the specific use of minors as it relates to sexual exploitation laws caused by using minors in VISUAL representation. Simply put, because the simulated porn can’t be used to hurt a minor, it is not covered by the plain language of existing sexual exploitation laws i.e.if it’s rendered image (not human) and you possess it, they can’t get you an sexual exploitation violation. (child pornography)

The opinion, delivered by Kennedy states: “While we have not had occasion to consider the question, we may assume that the apparent age of persons engaged in sexual conduct is relevant to whether a depiction offends community standards. Pictures of young children engaged in certain acts might be obscene where similar depictions of adults, or perhaps even older adolescents, would not. The CPPA, however, is not directed at speech that is obscene; Congress has proscribed those materials through a separate statute.”

However, that does not mean that those same people can’t be hit under severe violations of local and federal obscenity laws related to dissemination of such materials. This is why the FCC can fine a Television or radio station for profanity or airing certain programs during certain hours. More severe cases of outrageously disseminating obscene material may be punished by fines or imprisonment.

Another quote from the case which parrallels some of my earlier assertions:

“”In evaluating the free speech rights of adults, we have made it perfectly clear that `exual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment’ “) (quoting Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 126 (1989); Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U. S. 678, 701 (1977) (“[T]he fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppression”).”

This I feel may be applied to most stories here on Brawna and in fact I want to take back my earlier postulation that stories on Brawna may constitute obscenity and substitute that MOST are actually INDECENT (thats what I meant by referring to grandma’s table). However, there are some (I noted) that reach beyond merely indecent and extend into the realm of obscene.

As I noted, because there is a prohibition against sexually exploiting children, it naturally follows that including children in stories on a site which appeals to prurient interest, is potentially prosecutable as society would consider stories of children featured doing sado-masochist actions, explicit sexual acts, and excretory actions, to be “obscene”. Plain and simple. Two of Jimps recent outings do this and I personally have grave problems there.

As for your notes about Mein Kampf, of course it’s obscene because of how Hitler described his wishes for the destruction of Jewish populations but because it has historic value and insight into the events of a particular period of history, it passes the Miller Test. Same with the other works you’ve described.

In the end, I’m not an attorney or a legal expert. My only reason in posting is because people asked about various authors, you mentioned me and how I was an author who had returned to my previous work, and I felt compelled for notifying people my decision to pull them. I don’t know where Lingster is on this issue or the mods on Brawna. I did what I thought was best and flagged the stories for question. Either due to them not replying or deciding to keep them up they were not removed. If they were not removed because the moderator decided that they should stay, then this conversation between us, though heated at times lol, has actually helped inform people (I hope) with better knowledge (one way or the other) in addressing the concerns of the community.

As I noted before, I’d like to post and I’m continuing to write as time allows. I’m getting closer to the first climax of the story and I’m finding that I have so many different ideas floating around. Hell, I even thought about writing a story featuring the Baroness from G.I. Joe.

*shrug*

[None]

Btw, that was my final post on the topic as well. I guess we’ll see if the topic arrives against in the courts at a later date. *shrug*

[Zespara Alathar]

blah8884 wrote:

Huzzah! Nice story Steve the Z!

Ah, thanks for the info Zespara. Glad to know that Ed has done some writing, and also another reason why I probably enjoyed the writing.com series. Hmm… if he has emailed you those stories, wouldn’t they possibly still be in the inbox of your email address?

And I find the Soviet Superwoman to be an interesting storyline. Still amuses me (in regards to superman) that Stalin’s name essentially meant steel.

Yeah, SSW has some great stories that really peak the interests of those who like alternate storylines from WWII. A very talented writer indeed.

As far as Ed’s stories being on my computer, I do have the HD of my past few computers. Unfortunately a couple of them were in the process of melting down so I’m not sure if I can recover anything. I will be attempting to do so in the next couple of weeks so I’m keeping my fingers crossed. 😉

Z

[blah8884]

I wish you the best of luck! And possibly some ice 😛

[Author]

Posts