Actually, obscenity is one of the most poorly defined concepts in US law.
Ghavrel Send a noteboard - 26/02/2011 09:57:21 PM
It's defined by the Miller Test:
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
- Miller v. Arizona
The jurisprudence is a hopeless mess. I remember taking a first amendment course as a freshman and spending a month on obscenity alone.
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
- Miller v. Arizona
The jurisprudence is a hopeless mess. I remember taking a first amendment course as a freshman and spending a month on obscenity alone.
"We feel safe when we read what we recognise, what does not challenge our way of thinking.... a steady acceptance of pre-arranged patterns leads to the inability to question what we are told."
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
This message last edited by Ghavrel on 26/02/2011 at 09:57:55 PM
musician jailed over youtube prank -- faces 20+years plus child porn charges
- 20/02/2011 07:55:33 AM
1183 Views
Mmmm, there is more to it . At first I was thinking it was much ado about nothing.
- 20/02/2011 03:31:51 PM
960 Views
This explains what happened better and lets me feel a little mercy for the guy.
- 20/02/2011 03:59:41 PM
1052 Views
as stated, the children were never exposed to the "adult only" performance
- 20/02/2011 04:35:32 PM
731 Views
So I guess the moral of this story is think before you put things on the internet. *NM*
- 20/02/2011 06:10:32 PM
280 Views
His only mistake was not getting them to sign something, allowing to be posted on youtube
- 21/02/2011 01:51:30 AM
711 Views
kids don't have that right. The parents would have needed to sign. *NM*
- 21/02/2011 07:24:04 PM
301 Views
The lyrics were hilarious? The sample I read and posted had nothing funny in them...maybe you can
- 22/02/2011 12:35:05 AM
611 Views
Well ... from this parents perspective
- 21/02/2011 12:33:25 PM
711 Views
*NM*
For using the childrens' faces without permission he could be sued for monetary damages.
- 21/02/2011 01:50:19 PM
743 Views
Re: For using the childrens' faces without permission he could be sued for monetary damages.
- 21/02/2011 03:46:48 PM
725 Views
Tashmere's first reply above has a sample of the lyrics and how they were cut with the video. *NM*
- 21/02/2011 03:58:35 PM
270 Views
Agreed, that's really the only thing I can see that he can be sued for here. *NM*
- 25/02/2011 10:36:53 PM
254 Views
"Oh, I didn't actually abuse any of those kids."
- 21/02/2011 02:37:00 PM
651 Views
Agreed. But being an asshat is not a crime. *NM*
- 21/02/2011 05:02:59 PM
260 Views
no but using children to create sexually explicit material is
- 21/02/2011 07:36:32 PM
738 Views
Yes, this was disgusting, but since when does dirty lyrics = porn?
- 22/02/2011 04:18:05 PM
711 Views
The written word can be considered porn so why not song lyrics?
- 22/02/2011 05:04:37 PM
653 Views
It can?
- 23/02/2011 04:34:40 AM
725 Views
Yep
- 23/02/2011 05:04:49 AM
704 Views
Actually, obscenity is one of the most poorly defined concepts in US law.
- 26/02/2011 09:57:21 PM
793 Views
Am I the only one thinking of The Exorcist here?
- 25/02/2011 10:40:58 PM
780 Views
yes you are the only one thinking that
*NM*
- 25/02/2011 11:33:53 PM
248 Views
*NM*
- 25/02/2011 11:33:53 PM
248 Views
You gotta admit it doesn't get much worse than that in terms of exposing children to obscenity.
- 26/02/2011 12:13:46 AM
647 Views
Not sure if anyone else has asked this...
- 25/02/2011 01:19:08 PM
966 Views
kids are video taped all the time at schools
- 25/02/2011 02:05:38 PM
600 Views
School staff is one thing, outside sources are another.
- 25/02/2011 02:56:20 PM
681 Views
most states run background checks and this guy may have had one run on him
- 25/02/2011 03:19:58 PM
682 Views
he got permission from the teacher and the kids' parents before the original filming session
- 25/02/2011 03:20:30 PM
685 Views
they probably didn't think he would it to make a "funny" video
- 26/02/2011 07:43:59 PM
791 Views
show one example the song was about sex with children and I might agree *NM*
- 26/02/2011 09:23:44 PM
297 Views
If you try hard enough you can believe whatever you want
- 26/02/2011 10:09:45 PM
699 Views
and if you're determined to railroad someone none of the facts matter
- 26/02/2011 11:36:42 PM
845 Views
If I put out a video that had you giggling as I sung about cumming on your face you would be fine?
- 27/02/2011 09:09:25 PM
626 Views
of course not, but the 1st amendment says you have the right
- 27/02/2011 11:02:42 PM
596 Views
the courts ruled a long time ago that the 1st amendment does not cover all speech
- 28/02/2011 10:58:38 PM
815 Views