Posted on 07/16/2002 2:03:35 PM PDT by aconservaguy
Thanks for playing....
Miller applies to obscenity, and is in deep doo-doo as far as the internet goes. I think "not otherwise obscene" may have thrown you? The court simply used these cases to help rationalize their decision that virtual child porn should be protected speech.
Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that obscenity is not protected speech, they have a very schizoid history of trying to actually define it. In 1995 there was a case the ACLU won that may have pretty much killed Miller as far as the internet goes. TN had brought federal obscenity charges against a a CA couple dealing in child porn. (US vs. Thomases, I think) The charges didn't stick because the ACLU twisted another Supreme Court decision. (Stanley)
I *understand* your point about obscene speech, but how many federal obscenity laws deal with computer communications? Working from memory the CDA, COPA, and CIPA have all been struck down. The internet is truly a no man's land, at least for now, and it appears the Supreme Court is very reluctant to uphold laws that attempt to regulate obscene speech on the internet.
When Justice gets obscenity charges to stick (wins) on virtual porn without challenge from the ACLU or the other innumerous pornographers, let me know. I don't think it will happen, but I hope you are right in this.
Finally, this is a difficult subject to talk about, in part because it is extremely complicated and there's no clearly established case law for computer communication. (Obscene or otherwise:-))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.