Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
NoneParticipant
Thanks. Honestly, I’m still writing them as time allows but I probably won’t be posting them anytime soon per my reservations present in the thread. If I do decide to post them somewhere else (after much writing of course), I’ll let you all know.
NoneParticipantThanks but I think my writing days for posting are most certainly done for now. Sorry folks.
NoneParticipantBtw, 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*
NoneParticipantI 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*
NoneParticipantPug “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.
NoneParticipantI deleted this comment. I expressed my opinions on the law as I understand it. Nothing more to say. *shrug*
NoneParticipant…..
NoneParticipant….
NoneParticipantPug there are some things that I had commented on last night that did not make it the board and I was unable to recover. So, let me address some of those things now.
First, you cite Ashcroft vs. Free Speech coalition. This was aimed at shooting down the CPPA which prohibited speech “DESPITE its SERIOUS literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” citing classical works of art such as Romeo and Juliet as it’s standard. Nowhere does Ashcroft v. Free Speech coalition make 18 U.S.C. null, void, or unenforceable in determining what parameters may constitute OBSCENITY (artworks, literature, etc, with NO serious literary, political, or scientific value such as a “fetish” website.)
Secondly, when you note the First Amendment, please be mindful that the Founding Fathers were not libertines and expected morals and values to naturally limit speech or actions that they would have seen injurious to others and the public good barring government criticism or religious expression. In fact, the Founding Fathers saw morals and values as necessary elements of SELF GOVERNANCE, which, when followed, would further limit the need for intrusive external government. The concepts of self governance would aid and bolster the limits they sought to impose on external government, which is expressed in the ABSOLUTIST principles (lines that government cannot unreasonably cross) enshrined in the Constitution. However, with that said, they lived in an era in which the Great Awakening had just occurred, and because they noted that “men are not angels” they also understood that men must be governed and that government should be a reflection of benevolent morals and values.
Hence this idea of upholding public policy to prevent injuries to the public is a staple of our legal system. If the Founding Fathers had been libertines and had adopted an anything goes mindset, they would have felt no need to create a government that sought to uphold morals and values associated with human freedom even though that may not have always been the outcome at various times in history. Governments are not always angels either.
As for the stories, and my “aspersions”, you know of the stories I’m speaking of and you even yourself admitted or alluded to their troubling nature.
Lastly, I thought the Southpark clip was funny and was designed to inject humor into the conversation.
In the end, this is Lingster’s world. I am not trying to anger anyone and the same concerns I have with protecting the nature of our community and preventing unwanted attention, not only protect myself if there should be questions, but everyone else (and Lingster) who contributes as well. Please remember that in the last few months, 88,000 websites have been taken down by the government because of questionable materials. Do you want Brawna, mistakenly or not, to be one of them?
All we have to do is draw a line for the age of characters which is easily done.
P.S. Keith Olberman still sucks đ
NoneParticipantHere are my concerns. I know that I will have many challengers who will cite specific case law or legal usage, but please remember that modern cases often use standards from similar applicable laws in order to interpret laws or make findings of fact in various cases. For my concerns, (after research) I’m going to use the Miller Test to state my concerns.
The test has the following points to it.
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”[4]
Lets address number 1. The point about the changing nature of what is culturally excepted as societies progress through time, while true in itself, is not legally applicable here. The Miller test utilized âcontemporary community standardsâ as a basis of viewing potentially objectionable material.
With that said, while many states may have laws that allow for the age of consent to be 16-18, sexual acts concerning minors are often subject upper age limits where the two individuals are often in a close proximity of age. Once the age of 18 is reached, the 18 year old and partner are no longer subject to age proximity laws. Because of this, the commonly perceived community standard in the United States (the country of origin of this website) is 18. Furthermore, as of late there has been a trend for revision in law related to the age of consent upwards to 18 based on this commonly held view, not an erosion of it to younger age. (the law isn’t making age of consent younger). Lastly, these sexual encounters related to age of consent have nothing to do with public access or dissemination of questionable material where such materials may be subject to sexual exploitation laws (visual depictions) or obscenity laws.
In order to determine what constitutes obscene, there is a partial reliance on Federal laws involving sexual exploitation to consider. (Which also employ facets of the Miller Test). Simply put, a visual depiction of a minor (under 18) is commonly held to be obscene AND a violation of federal law. Now, while sexual exploitation statutes requires a VISUAL depiction of an actual person, if that person is under the age of 18 there is a violation. Therefore, 18 and up is legally safe in a visual depiction, while 18 and under is a violation. In determining if a violation against a minor has occurred, it may possess any of the following elements: They are this:
§ 2256.
For the purposes of this chapter, the termâ
(1) âminorâ means any person under the age of eighteen years;(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, âsexually explicit conductâ meansâ
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; orWith these have a starting perspective for what MAY constitute obscene (in materials involving adults), but which definitely and for FACT are obscene and thoroughly violate Federal law when visually depicting a minor.
The law is a crosscurrent of standards which may be applicable in other understandings and applications of law.
This takes us to prurient interest and how it applies to literature:
When taken as whole the nature of Brawnaâs stories and the sexual subject matter often employed in stories on the site (a fetish site) can be considered to appeal to a “prurient interest.” However, since ADULT pornographic visual materials require participants and actors to be the age of 18 or older to avoid violating Federal law, (with porn generally considered outside of the norm and best left out from Grandma’s kitchen table), mainstream adult porn while objectionable, is considered legal and consumed by adults. Mainstream adult pornography therefore is “generally accepted” by current community standards” even though some elements lack artistic merit and appeal to the prurient interest. This same sense of legal acceptance for ADULT pornography can be easily transferred to adult literature as well even if that that literature may be objectionable to some.
This is not the case with the stories featuring underage characters, which if they were visually depicted in film would be against against the law. When explicit acts (cited in list above) are merged with underage characters, there is NO QUESTION that it is obscene when viewed as whole under the three pronged Miller Test.
The stories on Brawna I speak of (featuring underage characters) and the very lewd depictions depicted therein, are questionable.
Hell, even the AUTHORS admit that their stories are questionable! Thus they even have doubts when compared with percieved contemporary community standards.
Moving onto number two, the works are explicit works which, when coupled with the age of the characters therein, are offensive by general community standards, and if depicted visually, would constitute a felony under Federal law which most states have adopted the terms I quoted above.
Number three: This is simple. All of Brawna’s stories, as well written as some of them may be, do not meet the criteria for SERIOUS LITERARY works such as Mark Twain which you employed in your original response to my concerns. However, as noted above, because they involve adult characters, like VISUAL depictions in adult film industry, they are legal and do not general fall under the same burden of obscenity that the underage fetish stories most definitely do when all of the elements of the Miller Test and definitions of “explicit” (derived from sexual exploitation statues) are brought to bare.
Therefore, based on this notion that I MAY be posting my stories on a sight housing questionable materials which may violate community standards related to obscenity when considered as whole per the considerations of the Miller test and federal definitions, I donât feel comfortable posting them there until we have some standards which reflect the ADULT oriented values of our community. All of these may be easily addressed by simply removing questionable materials and providing a more clearly defined posting rules.
Thatâs just MY feelings. Would I like to post them? Yes. Iâve worked very hard on them. Would I love to have you read my stories? Yes. I enjoy praise and I think Iâve got some cool things around the bend which are very entertaining.
And yes, whether you agree with me or not, I AM concerned depositing my stories on a site which may draw unwanted attention. That is only natural.
-
AuthorPosts