Manga ruled obscene

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Lord Lothar: Why would people buy this stuff???

Why, to satiate our prurient interests, of course.

[Faceman]

ooops forgot the original topic:

I'd consider this comic obscene! I'd rather not hve it on public display where children can see it. But I have seen lot worse in adult sections of book or video stores and therefore would consider it fit to be there. If however the state decided on a moral ground (the same that outlaws prostitution) to forbid selling this material in stores the transgression is obvious.

I'd like to know if there's a total selling ban on these things or if it's just stores meaning it would be legal to order it though the web for example.
If it is the latter I don't really see the big wrong Supreme Court was doing that storekeep. However if it is a complete ban we now face censorship and have ot ask ourselves if it is correct in this particular case.

The question is whether publishing of these comics or not should be based IMHO on if it poses a threat to society. I believe that NO book really does because the majority of a society usually has sound (even if not always bright) minds and therefore isn't really endangered.
IMO complete censorship is actually more a threat to society than any book can ever be.
In my country (Austria) for example private ownership of certain NS-material (flags, insignias, medals, copies of Mein Kampf) is forbidden (but in small cases a pecadillo) and public display is subjected to severe punishment. Yet you can read "Mein Kampf" in any major library and watch collections of the aforementioned material in museums. There is no research ban on that subject the government is just taking proper precaution that one of the greatest tragedies in our history never happens again by outlawing the worship of mass-murder. Is this a setback for freedom of speech? Yes. But it is also the right thing to do morally.

[Chewbacca]

There was another case recently, where a couple in California was arrested for shipping fake snuff/rape porn to Pennsylvania that was ordered on the internet. How can one enforce community standards on the world wide web? Obviously the community standard for porn is much different in L.A. than rural Pennsylvania.

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2246661

A federal grand jury in Pittsburgh has indicted the owners of a Los Angeles adult video production company for violating federal obscenity laws by offering videos depicting violence against women over the Internet and through the mail. U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said possession of obscene material is not illegal, but the production and distribution is. Robert D. Zicari and his wife, Janet Romano, are charged with distributing obscene material. The indictments are part of sting operation in Western Pennsylvania and, according to the Justice Department, other investigations are ongoing throughout the country. "If a company is wanting to take advantage of the Internet for marketing and distribution purposes, it's their responsibility to make sure they are not violating local laws," Buchanan was quoted as saying at a Pittsburgh press conference. Zicari and Romano, who own Extreme Associates, were featured on a PBS Frontline investigative show last year focusing on the pornography business. On that show, Zicari challenged law enforcement officials to "come after us for obscenity." On Tuesday, they did. Federal marshals and postal inspectors from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department, served a search and seizure warrant at Extreme Associates' San Fernando Valley offices for four videos, including one entitled "Forced Entry," which depicts a woman being beaten, raped and spat upon. Also seized were sales records, distribution records, invoices, transaction records, records of payments and deposits, profit/loss and financial statements, records of accounts payable and accounts receivable, expense records, customer lists, employee records, notes, correspondence and other business papers which reflect or relate to the production, advertisement, distribution, and the sale of the films. "This is not a case about limiting personal sexual conduct. It is not a case about banning sexually explicit material," Buchanan said. "This is a case about a pornography producer who has violated federal law. Extreme Associates has engaged in criminal conduct by producing and distributing material that violates our contemporary community standards." The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that material is obscene if it is patently offensive, appeals to prurient interest and has no artistic merit. There has not been a major obscenity trial in the U.S. in the last ten years. On a posting on the Extreme Associates site, Zicari vowed to fight the indictments. "Extreme Associates doors are now and will remain open for business selling the fine quality Extreme product that you have grown to love," Zicari stated. "This will include all of the videos which are part of this obscenity investigation as we stand by our product and feel that nothing we have ever produced is obscene. The only thing we may be guilty of is bad taste."

[ 08-14-2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: There was another case recently, where a couple in California was arrested for shipping fake snuff/rape porn to Pennsylvania that was ordered on the internet. How can one enforce community standards on the world wide web? Obviously the community standard for porn is much different in L.A. than rural Pennsylvania.

Yes, but if you sold it to rural PA online, it is as if you'd opened up a "brick and mortar" storefront in PA.

This comes down to jurisdiction -- and the jurisdictional rules regarding online selling state if you sold there, you are subject to the rules there and can be hailed into court there. Beware.

[Chewbacca]

What about webcasts of "obscene" videos? Is that the same as opening a movie theatre in another community? Is not downloading one of these videos (or comic books) the "same" as ordering a copy? I sense a can or worms...

[ 08-14-2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This comes down to jurisdiction -- and the jurisdictional rules regarding online selling state if you sold there, you are subject to the rules there and can be hailed into court there. Beware.

That sounds extreme burdensome to online retailers. How is an outfit in Indiana going to know the community standards of a burg in Florida?

Edit:
Also this smacks of states regulating inter-state commerce which I thought was a no-no. And what if the material was ordered from overseas?

[ 08-14-2003, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This comes down to jurisdiction -- and the jurisdictional rules regarding online selling state if you sold there, you are subject to the rules there and can be hailed into court there. Beware.

That sounds extreme burdensome to online retailers. How is an outfit in Indiana going to know the community standards of a burg in Florida?

Edit:
Also this smacks of states regulating inter-state commerce which I thought was a no-no. And what if the material was ordered from overseas? [/QUOTE]The landmark case bringing foreign goods within the purview of state lawsuits was litigated against Asahi Motors and involved motorcycle parts.

If you want the business from the locale, you are governed by its rules. If and India Company doesn't want to be subject to US laws, it should simply not take orders from the USA.

But, by making use of the benefits of the jurisdication, and by availing yourself of its commerce, you subject yourself to its laws and often to litigating in its forum. Of course, few and far between are the USA man-on-the-street litigants who will chase down the Indian company, properly serve them legal papers, and then fight through all of their jurisdiction-challenging motions.

But, online ordering is simply a large mail order system. It has always been the case that if you shipped a defective product to Nebraska, and it blew up in the face of the recipient, you are on the hook.