0
2

[–] Pizzalawyer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

kudos to everyone trying to.understand obscenity laws; Im not sure I understand them myself so I will just speak.in broad generalities. Such laws and court interpretaions can be found in both federal.and state jurisdictions. Interstate commerce by way of mail or computer communication gives the feds the right to impose laws while the states have an inherent right to protect the welfare of its citizens. Sometimes there is both federal and state jurisdiction and one agency may defer to another or alternatively may.embark on a joint operation to.carry out law enforcement.

Miller remains good law but the challenge for law enforcement are the definitions of the applicable standards. What is an offense against community standards can be one thing for Las Vegas and a different thing for Warren, Pennsylvania. And how do you arrive at a community standard where the world wide Internet is involved? There is no local community. Standards also evolve. What was shocking in 1973 is no big deal.in 2018.

And when is a movie or video appealing primarily to purient interests rather than art or education? Hollywood and publishers have been pushing the limits ever since Miller. They will find the most vulgar true life story and then build a movie around it with as much salacious realism that can be packaged into it. Remember the teen magazine with the article promoting anal sex for both boys and girls? Dont be put off by the smell of feces, everyone has some feces in their rectum, its natural. Nary a protest! Except from us. But one can argue that it appealed to purient interests more than education because it completely left out the dangers of anal sex. So you can see the difficulties for a prosecutor.

Fortunately, obscenity laws for children operate within a totally.separate framework which is pretty simple and straight forward. The legal framework is couched in terms of child sex abuse rather than.obscenity. The laws vary slightly .from state to state. Typically the law prohibits any image of a real.child that features the genitalia and prohibits any image in which any part of a childs body comes into contact with the genitalia of another person whether an adult or not. Some states will add beastiality to the mix. But now the bugaboo.is proving it's a real image instead of a photo shopped creation. So who has the best forensic tools to do battle with this defense. And what about cartoon characters where there is no.real image? I suppose that takes us back.to obscenity laws.

Cops and prosecutors dont have a crystal ball for divining an offense. They rely.on complaints from.victims or concerned citizens and they will have to prioritize the.offenses due to fiscal. and staff constraints and then they will have to go about proving the case.

@johndavidpodesta does a good job of summarizing the issue of a childs access to obscene content. The new frontier will entail Internet censorship and just how much an open and free society will tolerate restrictions. And that's a topic I'm not prepared to discuss.

0
0

[–] JohanneOAlors 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Child pornography is illegal throughout the US, which is exactly what those tweets constitute.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Pizzalawyer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

you are welcome. I dont know how to copy and paste so I cant provide citations or links. We all strayed off point re: Satanism. I dont believe there are any laws b/c we as a society have not yet recognized it as harmful. I need to do some research but I think India's new law providing for capital punishment for raping a child also included references to SRA. I'll get back with you later.

0
2

[–] carmencita 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I agree all too depressing. This is why Satanism has been so heavily pushed. They are all about this porn and hoping to push it on Our Children and then open them up to the hard corn porn found on the internet. We know that some pedos say they only watch adult porn and not kids, but we also know that it is just a step away. So what is to keep Our Children from reaching that one step beyond as well. Sick and Sad and Oh So Frustrating.

5
-2

[–] JohnDavidPodesta 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Carmencita it is my understanding you are a Catholic, well something which isn't mentioned nearly often enough is the original depiction of Satan as God's Chief Advocate, Accuser and Executioner. The highest ranking angel is the Seraphim, with six wings. Seraphim are defined as "serpent" and hence where the amalgamation of the characters' role comes into play.

0
1

[–] Oh_Well_ian 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Carmencita it is my understanding you are a Catholic

Really? How did you come to that conclusion, Skippy? After all, you have only been here barely 2 hours. 0_o

0
1

[–] carmencita 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

God through out the devil ages ago. I don't go to church and have not read up on the teachings for years. I know what is in my heart and I pray every day. Not to the devil to God and His Mother Mary. That keeps me busy enough besides being on here every day on and off.

0
1

[–] Angelis_Solaris 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Considering that pornography addiction is a progressive illness and ends with pedophilia (in many but not all people), it is particularly concerning that our society has such lax attitudes about it.

0
0

[–] Angelis_Solaris 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

To clarify, I think that going forward the number of people who become greater sexual deviants due to pornography will increase as our collective/national situation worsens. There are several paths to pedophilia and one of them is via severe pornography addiction, which in many people is a progressive illness, kind of like cocaine or something like that. Where softcore pornography will no longer release enough dopamine in the target's brain, they may gradually transition to watching hardcore porn, then fetish material, then BDSM and then worse things still. Not because they necessarily normally want to, but because their Limbic Center of the Brain has been compromised by their severe addiction. Apparently, this type of illness is curable -- I've heard that Amino Acid Therapy has been purported to be able to restore the depleted neurotransmitters in the Target's brain, causing them to go back to regular life with (usually) only partial relapse with regular porn. Here are the relevant links to some information regarding curing porn addiction (by Wholehealthrecovery):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EKYJb_4cMJDbpO7jTuDHGpRMqnNN74FS

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CZf2eFvEeGbrPIVEo-aeytwq_bCjEtL-

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DgPZBggYpOG6jI_CCCTUVDF_l_hGHO7h

0
1

[–] shewhomustbeobeyed 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

4
0

[–] JohnDavidPodesta 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Grounds for a class action Lawsuit against the corporate entity Youtube for their wilful or grossly negligent role in the exploitation of minors.

"Elsagate" is a disturbing phenomenon which was uncovered through the intensive research of members of the public.

We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.


Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offences. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text..

In Miller v. California (1973) - the currently-binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue - the Court ruled materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

Elsagate For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law. http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1532983749398.png

CEOS’s Role The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) remains dedicated to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorney´s Offices throughout the country to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. The use of the Internet to distribute obscenity has blurred traditional notions of jurisdiction. CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus to help coordinate nationwide investigations and initiatives. Given the importance of community standards under the Miller test, however, CEOS recognizes that the full commitment and support of local United States Attorney´s Offices, who best know local community standards, are absolutely essential to the federal obscenity enforcement efforts.

CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON OBSCENITY 18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property 18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes 18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language 18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture 18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television 18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions 18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C).

archive: http://archive.is/36aok open: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/180601986

30th June 2018

0
0

[–] Pizzalawyer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's not the real.John D. Podesta, is it?

5
-2

[–] JohnDavidPodesta 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

Grounds for a class action Lawsuit against the corporate entity Youtube for their wilful or grossly negligent role in the exploitation of minors.

"Elsagate" is a disturbing phenomenon which was uncovered through the intensive research of members of the public.

We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.


Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offences. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text..

In Miller v. California (1973) - the currently-binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue - the Court ruled materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

Elsagate For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law. http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1532983749398.png

CEOS’s Role The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) remains dedicated to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorney´s Offices throughout the country to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. The use of the Internet to distribute obscenity has blurred traditional notions of jurisdiction. CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus to help coordinate nationwide investigations and initiatives. Given the importance of community standards under the Miller test, however, CEOS recognizes that the full commitment and support of local United States Attorney´s Offices, who best know local community standards, are absolutely essential to the federal obscenity enforcement efforts.

CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON OBSCENITY 18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property 18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes 18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language 18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture 18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television 18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions 18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C).

archive: http://archive.is/36aok open: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/180601986

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

5
0

[–] JohnDavidPodesta 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

That is correct.

3
-2

[–] Are_we__sure 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Hi, all your posts on this have been very unclear and confusing.

What you seem to be asking is can obscenity law be applied to material like Elsagate or Pinkie Pie?

Is this the crux of the issue? Did I miss anything?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
-2

[–] Are_we_sure 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Perhaps because you surrounded your post with extraneous and confusing nonsense.

I don't know what Pinkie Pie is, but the Elsagate/Toy Freaks stuff was not illegal.

Anthony Jeselnik's jokes are not illegal.

No federal prosecutor in the country would try to say that they are.

If you think these are legally obscene as oppossed being obscene in a colloquial sense, please lay out a case with a specific example that violates the Miller test.

Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.