You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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