This is a dinky local law in Cincy. You said earlier some obscenity fell under a federal offense. Where is that law? What type of porn falls under this statute. How do you define this anyway? I'm sure it's next to the invisible one that legalizes abortion.
I’ll defer to your superior knowledge of how X-rated porn sites and bookstores compare to X-rated porn flicks at Marriott.
So X-rated porn in hotels that is unaccessible unless one willingly purchases it is more dangerous than the stuff on street corners, libraries, and readily available on computers.
You guys really got your priorities straight, you really do.
However, unless there’s sexual “penetration clearly visible,” nothing in Maxim or Stuff runs any risk of federal obscenity charges.
Gas stations & travel centers sell Penthouse, Hustler, etc. that all feature penetration. They're still on shelves and can be purchased. I'm sure consumers bought one of them. Didn't see any flashing blue & red lights and an officer arresting the consumer. Wonder why?
But two Marriotts in Cincy did face state obscenity charges until they removed the porn flicks distributed by On Command to Marriotts nationwide.
Expect a lawsuit from Marriott and the state or U.S. Supreme court striking down the busybodies.
“So X-rated porn in hotels that is unaccessible unless one willingly purchases it is more dangerous than the stuff on street corners, libraries, and readily available on computers.”
You’re off in la-la land now, EEE. But if you can cite me where I ever wrote the above, I’ll bother to respond further.
Actually, it was a state law in both KY and OH, and the local prosecutors obviously didn’t consider it “dinky.”
Again, I’ll defer to your certainty of what’s in Penthouse and Hustler.
Triple E, ignoring my counsel not to rush to put his ignorance of the law on display, wrote:
“You said earlier some obscenity fell under a federal offense. Where is that law? What type of porn falls under this statute. How do you define this anyway? I’m sure it’s next to the invisible one that legalizes abortion.”
Don’t make this so easy, EEE. Takes all the sport out of it.
U.S. Code — Title 18 — Chapter 71. Obscenity:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter71_.html
And how I define obscenity is irrelevant. It’s how the U.S. Supreme Court has defined it that’s actually relevant to federal prosecution.
“Miller v California sets out the ‘modern’ test for obscenity. After years in which no Supreme Court opinion could command majority support, five members of the Court in Miller set out a several-part test for judging obscenity statutes: (1) the proscribed material must depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, (2) the conduct must be specifically described in the law, and (3) the work must, taken as a whole, lack serious value and must appeal to a prurient interest in sex. What is patently offensive is to be determined by applying community values, but any jury decision in these cases is subject to independent constitutional review.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obscenity.htm
Here’s another very informative link that will enlighten Freepers actually interested in facts about this issue and the law, rather than EEE’s erroneous suppositions:
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/cliches2.cfm