If this is the law, how can porn exist?

[Rashiir]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch71.html

So what does that mean? If I interpret that correctly, that should pretty much make any and all porn illegal. But um...I don't get how that law and porn can coexist unless the executive branch is not functioning or something. Can anyone explain to me what's up?

[shooraijin]

Note: IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) BIPOOTV (But I Play One On TV)

I think Title 18 is more noteworthy for what it *doesn't* say rather than what it does. While there is ample penalty for distribution of things termed "obscene" or "vile" or "lascivious" it doesn't define, except for one isolated definition of "indecent" and only then referring to it in the context of inciting crime, what those terms are.

Certainly in that kind of void the First Amendment comes into play, and that's been endlessly debated in the courts. Also, there is a certain cessation of definitions and direct enforcement to the States, and certainly those of us on the Left Coast have to endure a greater level of acceptance of such things as "art" or "consensual sexual behaviour" because of local laws, or lack thereof.

[uc pseudonym]

Yeah, I'd agree, in that the language is far too vague to actually make something illegal. But that has never stopped things from happening anyway.

[Rashiir]

I hate the system.

[Technomancer]

I'm less familiar with American law than I am with Canadian, but there are two issues that I see:

1)Constitutional- in light of the first amendment is this law enforceable in most cases? I'd wager probably not. Parts of this law may date to a period when judicial standards were different (this is certainly the case in Canada, where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to the constitution in 1982)

2)Definition- The chapter does not seem to define what constitutes obscenity. This involves the whole issue of who decides, and on what basis. On the basis of some cases that have arisen, I'd want to be bloody careful of who's left in charge of such matters.

I can see this law being used to further restrict activities that are illegal under different circumstances (eg. child porn, because of the obvious harm to victimized children), where transmission of the material effectively makes one an accessory to the original crime. Either that or where the material involves incitement to commit certain crimes (hate speech, etc).

[Rashiir]

One of the articles I read on it said that obscenity is legally determined by what would offend the average person and that if people don't say anything it is interpreted as acceptable. Maybe we should get together and file a complaint.

[shooraijin]

> Either that or where the material involves incitement to commit certain crimes (hate speech, etc).

There actually is some specific provision for this particular issue (ref. Title 18, Pt. I, Ch 71, Sec 1461): "The term 'indecent', as used in this section includes matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination." I would assume any kind of hate speech that would (directly?) lead to crime against a person or property would fall under this guideline.

[Shinja]

the reason it still exist in american culture, is because of the huge ammout of money it brings into our economy, billons of dollars each year. and unlike most other markets after 9-11 the porn industry continued to grow. and as of yet very little has been done to change that in our country.

[NightHedgehog]

People will always want thier porn. It's a big business, and there is no possible way you can get rid of it.

[Shinja]

it can be gotten rid of, if the christians in america stop sitting quite and actully push for its removal.

[NightHedgehog]

Pornography, I hate to say, more than likely won't be banned then it will. It's considered a form of free speech, which is protected. Why do you think they allowed child porn to become legal to own a couple years ago? Yeah, it is very sick and twisted.

[CDLviking]

One thing that I've never been able to understand is, if prostitution is illegal, then shouldn't making porn be illegal also? I mean they are basicly paying these people to have sex with each other, which seems to fit the definition of prostitution to me.

[VEGETA]

I can see the christian view but as an american soldier who defends the constitution, any attempt to silence the porn industry would be a crime against that and thus would require my to enforce the constitution.

The constitution is in place so people can live their life any way they see fit AS LONG AS it does not infringe on the rights of others.

I think we as christians need to realise that though we do not agree with it at all, we do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others. We do not have to like it but we do not have the right as a christian american to try to stop them if it doesnt infringe on our rights...which it does not.

[NightHedgehog]

I think we as christians need to realise that though we do not agree with it at all, we do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others. We do not have to like it but we do not have the right as a christian american to try to stop them if it doesnt infringe on our rights...which it does not.

I concur. It's thier choice in life. To each his own.

[Bobtheduck]

> Either that or where the material involves incitement to commit certain crimes (hate speech, etc).

There actually is some specific provision for this particular issue (ref. Title 18, Pt. I, Ch 71, Sec 1461): "The term 'indecent', as used in this section includes matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination." I would assume any kind of hate speech that would (directly?) lead to crime against a person or property would fall under this guideline.

There is a movement to try to make it a law that calling Homosexuality a sin is hate speech, because it can incite people to commit acts of violence against homosexuals. There is also a work happening to consider acceptance of the Gospel as historical to be considered hate activity, because it may fuel attacks against Jews since Caiaphas was Jewish, the majority of Jesus' enemies were Jewish (but also his friends... That doesn't ever seem to be brought into the argument), Paul had almost (but not completely) given up on Jews (who were his own people) to reach the gentiles instead, and of course many so-called Christians had, in the name of Jesus, commited acts of violence against Jews. People are trying to make it a hate crime to try to evangelize people of other religions, because to suggest that they may be wrong is to have hatred for them and to have a superior nature over them.

All of these things are by-products of the documents meant to prevent that from happening. Plain fact is, human languages are all imperfect. People are imperfect. The wording in these laws can serve to damage us as well. People will try to use vague wording and imperfect documents to accomplish their goals. Christians will be the minority eventually, because that's the way it was supposed to be. It wasn't supposed to be nations led by Christians. That has created a pseudo-christian culture that looks so much like Christianity, but isn't. No, true Christianity is going to fall more and more out of social acceptance until persecution is worldwide.

We can't rely on the observations, contemplations, and calculations of man to help us. We can't rely on something manmade to protect us or to make things right. Only God can. While he may for a time, that time will end eventually, and we need to be ready for it, whether it happens tomorrow or after we all die. The world did not accept Jesus. We should not expect a majority to be in support of us. We can't expect to create laws to keep things "less sinfull" because "less sinfull" isn't what God wants. To continue to expect the world to follow Jesus' principles is foolish.

I thought I'd point something else out:

[quote]Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose]

This law, like most that are passed, was able to be repealed and changed. Preventing Murder and immorality were good intentions, just very naive. The way we make a change is to live our lives the way God wants, and to tell others about Him. That needs to happen whether the public is agreeing or not.

True change does not come by legislating and preventing of legislature, but by prayer, fasting, living in the light, and sharing that light with others in whatever means we have the ablitity to do that.

[cbwing0]

If I interpret that correctly, that should pretty much make any and all porn illegal.

As it is a federal law, it would only apply to such materials distributed through interstate commerce. The individual states could do whatever they wanted, which would most likely be refusing to enforce the law, or making their own, different laws. It would also not seem to affect internet porn, which is arguably the primary vector today.

[Fsiphskilm]

*snip*

OldPhilosopher: This is not appropriate on these forums. If you find suffering funny, take it else where. If the word "funny" meant "queer" or "ironic" then you better make sure it's obvious next time.

[Zilch]

>>>The constitution is in place so people can live their life any way they see fit AS LONG AS it does not infringe on the rights of others<<<

But does that make it right? Does that mean they can hide their sin behind this wall of law?(shakes head) Last days, people, last days...

[Inferno]

*Volt's quote above snipped here too*

you know this is sick and wrong!


OldPhilosopher: Snipped.

[Shinja]

>>>The constitution is in place so people can live their life any way they see fit AS LONG AS it does not infringe on the rights of others<<<

But does that make it right? Does that mean they can hide their sin behind this wall of law?(shakes head) Last days, people, last days...

the consitution doesnt protect pornography, and in fact, not untill recently, has it been used in court to try and protect it, under the 1st amendment, as free speach. porn is not free speach, the 1st amendment very clearly deals with: first deals with religious freedom, second the transfer and publication of ideas, the individuals right to print, speak, and protest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

this does not include the right to print/manufacture porn. the closest you can get is in the statement "the press" wich means publication, but even that would only mean at most it could be printed if it were leagal to do so already.
content is still at question as to weather it is in fact legal. pron is not an expression, or an idea. its like coke its a product ment to sell, therfore there is no connection to which it can be made to the constitution.

my 2 cents

[VEGETA]

I was more refering to the freedom of speech which has been interperted(sp) to mean any form of personal expression or art which includes pornography. Not the freedom of the press.

[Shinja]

speech in the leagal term in which the constitution was writen "speech" is just that speech. that is why it lists the press, and protest separtly. i cannot accept that any form of expression is speach, and like i said before porn is not an art or idea, its a comodity that uses mans sinfull desire to fill the pockets of its producers. if people really want to look at porn, let them, but keep it out of all places public.

it amazes me how school teachers and lirbraians will fight to keep the right to have access to porn in schools, but yet wont let students give out christmas cards with a picture of Jesus on them. this world is filled with evil.

[Technomancer]

I am familiar with the case of the libraries, and to say that they are arguing for pornography in schools is quite disingenous I'm afraid. Given the number of internet porn sites (and their hyrda-like nature), it is essentially impossible to block them all without imposing draconian measures. For example, blocking access to any site with the word "sex" in the title or webpage. Clearly, this would block many legitimate sites in addition to the objectionable ones. This would obviously run counter to any libraries mandate.

Moreover, there is also the obvious issue of what is objectionable in the first place. As I mentioned, there are many legitimate sites than may (and in fact have been) blocked. These can include sites relating to sex-education, breast cancer, child abuse and other issues. There are also those parents whose idea of "objectionable" is rather broader than the average citizen's. I see little reason for them to be given a veto over what other people's children may or may not read.

[Mithrandir]

Hmm. Looks like digging up old threads can revive some we had rather hoped would die out on their own.

:locked: