The Pub Discussion Board

So where are the next two, Warlord? 

Eric

Neitherspace wrote:

well the anime (well lets be fair Hentai) he can fight cause its drawn therefore art

Greetings

Well no they have fundamentally changed the ddefinition of art and obscenity by saying:

"it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."

To this point the obscenity standard was that from 1973 Miller v California:

The Miller test has three parts:

*** Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work,   taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
***  Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
*** Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).

Up until this ruling I was comfortable that words and drawn art would even if very sexual would meet the standard as well as by being "imaginary" skirted the whole child porn issue.

By saying that "imaginary" sex is actionable, the court pretty much toredoed Miller but also put a whole lot of mainstream shit in play too.  For instance, Nabokov's Lolita was imaginary and when depicted in film its by a much older actress BUT by this ruling an older actress depicting child porn is no more exempt than that hentai...

Now the whole ruling is muddied by the guy actually possesing what seems universally agreed were illegal images but the words seem to portend interesting times but in this case for the whole of Hollywood

"If the law supposes that… the law is a [sic] ass—a idiot." so sayeth Mr Bumble

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

If this law were applied evenly (which it WON'T be), say good-bye to nearly every piece of fiction on the planet.

AND the Bible.
AND every history book ever written.
AND.... well, you get the point.

Eric

No, she was 13 when she had him.  Which means she was probably 12 when she conceived him.  If a 12yo is good enough for God, how come we can't have one?    (for all those who don't know my sense of humor, yes, I'm kidding, but the point is a valid one.)

Eric