From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d Subject: Re: Freenets Censor Writers Date: 26 May 94 05:34:24 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <112605@cup.portal.com> <2s14vq$p63@mailer.fsu.edu> gmitchel@garnet.acns.fsu.edu writes: [...] >You cannot consider isolated parts of the work. It is not enough >that one or two photos have prurient appeal -- whatever in the hell >that is. The work as a whole must lack serious artistic, scientific, >or literary merit. [...] That why I think banning a binary newsgroup may be unnecessary under _Miller_. A hypothetical dialogue: ============================================= Socrates: Why are you banning newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.erotica? Uadminim: Because we think it is likely obscene. Socrates: Every picture? Uadminim: No, just some pictures. Socrates: Then why not ban just the obscene pictures? Uadminim: Because it is not practical to find the obscene ones. Socrates: So you are saying that one bad apple spoils the whole batch? Uadminim: Yes. Socrates: But _Miller_ says something different. It says one good apple saves the whole batch. Uadminim: Oh. ============================================= Of course, nonobscene doesn't make something a good apple, but with more and more fine-art pictures on-line, include many nudes, it should be easy to find some good apples. If the Supreme Court wants edifying, give them edifying. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= faq/computer-porn ================= * Banning "porn" from university computers q: Should universities create a rule banning "porn" on university computers? a: In my opinion, no. Such a rule would be unnecessary and too broad. ... [Includes pointers to fine art nudes.] ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and then: cd /pub/CAF/faq get computer-porn To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/faq get computer-porn -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: From: gmitchel@garnet.acns.fsu.edu Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk,misc.writing,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Freenets Censor Writers Date: Sat, 28 May 94 18:10:38 PDT Organization: Florida State University Lines: 41 Message-ID: <2s8g18$btd@mailer.fsu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In article , writes: > > > The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_ > > > test) is: > > > > > > 1) must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person > > Question... do nude little boys 'appeal to the prurient interest of the > average person', the key words being 'AVERAGE PERSON'? Is the 'Average' > person sexually interested in little boys?, I think not. Therefore, is > is legal to publish such pictures? (Ref: 'At Play in the Fields > of The Lord') > The test involves the work taken as a whole. A portion of the work violating community standards is not sufficient under Miller v. California. The fact that a movie has nude little boys -- in and of itself -- would not automatically fall under non-protected expression. > I guess, based upon the existance of that film at my local > video store, that's true... But what about sexually oriented material > involving minors? as long as it dosn't titillate the average person, it's > OK?, what about BDSM films?, is the average person turned on by them? > Guess they are legal to! > > :) Titillation is not enough -- in and of itself -- either. The work must also lack serious scientific, artistic, or literary merit. This is a separate consideration. Newspapers and community blue noses often miss all of the requirements of Miller v. California when they bleat out "Community Standards". Mitch > > -- > My opinions aren't nessacarally those of microsoft corp's.... > Though WHY they would express an opinion is this subject is beyond me!