“You already know what the legal definition of obscenity is because you said it was vague and problematic.... You should take your support for the disgusting communist Obama and his sodomite pornography agenda somewhere else. Support for Obama and his policies in favor of obscene pornography are not welcome here.”
My, my, aren’t we touchy. Not used to having people disagree with you, I see.
The definition I quoted to you was “patently offensive to prevailing local community standards.” Pray tell, Sherlock, what are “local community standards” on the internet? Is it the local community standards of New York City or of Enid, Oklahoma? Or do you think they are the same?
I was a criminal defense lawyer for twenty years, and I can tell you that trying to enforce “local community standards” on the internet is definitely problematic, and if you would open up your brain for two seconds and actually think about it instead of leaping into attack mode, you would see that I have a point.
That is incorrect. The legal precedent is "the average person applying contemporary community standards," you added the word "local." The USA is a community, and the community standards of the average American are not the standards of the average democrat pervert sodomite.
President Bush successfully prosecuted obscenity cases involving fisting, vomiting, urination, torture, bestiality, rape and defecation.
Now it is entirely up to you to explain how any average American would not find the depiction of such acts to be prurient and offensive. Just don't expect any jury to pay any attention to your absurd sophistry.