Florida Web Site Shut Down for being Obscene

[eilute]

The site in this case is http://www.nowthatsf***edup.com. The site was largely amateur pornography but it "received national attention for permitting U.S. soldiers overseas to post pictures showing war dead."

Here is a link to a site that advocates that the case be dropped: Text

I thought this was protected by free speech. I thought that a webmaster could post obscene material on the world wide web with out having to fear litigation.

Are there international laws that would prohibit publishing images of war dead? If so, is it really within the jurisdiction of the state of Florida? Do you think it is unethical to publish such photos? Is it right for a state government to shield Americans from the death and gore they have brought to foreign lands? Apparently the case is ongoing and the ACLU has gotten involved.

What's really kind of fvcked up is that the Polk County Sheriff and the State Attorney?s Office made the move to shut this site down.

 

[dmcowen674]

All your Internets belong to Bush

 

[eilute]

As in "All your internets are belong to Bush?"

 

[eilute]

There was an Anandtech P&N post a while ago about the site. It said that soldiers were posting pictures of dead Iraqis in exchange for porn. Where I live, porn is everywhere on the Internet. Nobody ever needs pictures of dead people to acquire porn. I am skeptical of the claim.

Now I did happen to visited the site. There were lots of pictures of naked people, but I did not see a single image of a dead person.

I not sure what the web site owner has done wrong. I mean users of the site post nudie pictures. That is what the site was for. If some forum the users post pictures of dead people, is it all of the sudden the obligation of the XXX Porn Forum Moderator to start censoring posts?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Welcome to Florida Law - courtesy of Jeb Bush & his Conservative backers.

We're here to mind your business for you.

 

[bamacre]

I think the site, as it is now, better describes the domain name.

Irony at it's finest.

 

[outriding]

They should have put it on the other internet.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

This is somewhat dated, since the 'resolution' was announced in mid-Jan, and the site shut down in early May. So the OP is wrong about the case being 'ongoing' (if you read the freechris post carefully it said now that the fight is over, the site is over as well).

I'm no lawyer, but I think that since this material was branded 'obscene', it is subject to the miller test (http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Censorship/3-prong-test.html)

In lieu of the obscenity criteria enunciated by the Memoirs plurality, it is held:

1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24.

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. [Pp. 24-25.]

3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. [Pp. 24-25.]

4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." [Pp. 30-34.]

notice it mentioned "community standards"....I would wager to say that Polk County is conservative and thus it would run afoul of community standards there.

As a sidenote, the server was based in Amsterdam, but the webmaster (Chris) resided in Polk County, which apparently gave the sheriff's dept. jurisdiction.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the site, as it is now, better describes the domain name.

Irony at it's finest.

What's really funny is that if click on the link to the sheriff's web page, you are taken to the sheriffs page, but the URL in your browser does not change.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
This is somewhat dated, since the 'resolution' was announced in mid-Jan, and the site shut down in early May. So the OP is wrong about the case being 'ongoing' (if you read the freechris post carefully it said now that the fight is over, the site is over as well).

I'm no lawyer, but I think that since this material was branded 'obscene', it is subject to the miller test (http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Censorship/3-prong-test.html)

In lieu of the obscenity criteria enunciated by the Memoirs plurality, it is held:

1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24.

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. [Pp. 24-25.]

3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. [Pp. 24-25.]

4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." [Pp. 30-34.]

notice it mentioned "community standards"....I would wager to say that Polk County is conservative and thus it would run afoul of community standards there.

As a sidenote, the server was based in Amsterdam, but the webmaster (Chris) resided in Polk County, which apparently gave the sheriff's dept. jurisdiction.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g...l?navby=case&court=us&vol=451&page=619

U.S. Supreme Court
FLYNT v. OHIO, 451 U.S. 619 (1981)
451 U.S. 619

FLYNT ET AL. v. OHIO.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

No. 80-420.

Argued March 24, 1981.
Decided May 18, 1981.

In a prosecution charging petitioners with disseminating obscenity in violation of Ohio law, the trial court granted their motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that they had been subjected to selective and discriminatory prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial, finding the evidence insufficient to support the allegations of discriminatory prosecution. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.

Held:

Because the Ohio Supreme Court's decision was not a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1257, the writ of certiorari previously granted by this Court is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the context of a criminal prosecution, finality of judgment is normally defined by the imposition of a sentence. Here there has been no finding of guilt and no sentence imposed. Nor is the Ohio Supreme Court's decision a final judgment within any of the four exceptions to the general rule identified in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 . Resolution of the question whether the obscenity prosecution of petitioners was selective or discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause can await final judgment in the state criminal proceeding without any adverse effect upon important federal interests.

I'm not lawyer either, but this would imply that Polk County, population 483,924, also arrests people for selling nudie mags.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow, Flori-duh's even more backwards than I first suspected.

 

[Zorba]

What I really don't get, is none of the porn I ever saw on that site was all that bad, well at least nothing worse than you could see just about anywhere else. Definitely nothing worse than something over at www.styleproject.com. Probably just Bush's bother trying to keep war pictures of the internet to help Bush out.

 

[13Gigatons]

That guy should have moved to Amsterdam.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the site, as it is now, better describes the domain name.

Irony at it's finest.

What's really funny is that if click on the link to the sheriff's web page, you are taken to the sheriffs page, but the URL in your browser does not change.

:laugh:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the site, as it is now, better describes the domain name.

Irony at it's finest.

What's really funny is that if click on the link to the sheriff's web page, you are taken to the sheriffs page, but the URL in your browser does not change.

:laugh:

I noticed that as well. They were probably too busy looking at the porn to fix the URL.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, Flori-duh's even more backwards than I first suspected.

Brudda, you don't know the half of it! We have so many wrinklies and their stone-age mentality here....

 

[bozack]

I remember hearing of that...too bad that such censorship comes about.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Conservative communities such as "Polk County" dont care about stupid pieces of paper such as the consitution when there are obscene things like "sex" and "vulgarity" to stamp out of society. The neo-fascists march on through Florida

 

[HombrePequeno]

I shot the Polk County Sheriff's Office an email. I doubt it will do any good but trying is better than sitting here and watching someone's rights be taken away.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Conservative communities such as "Polk County" dont care about stupid pieces of paper such as the consitution when there are obscene things like "sex" and "vulgarity" to stamp out of society. The neo-fascists march on through Florida

I don't feel sorry for Floridians or any Americans crying about loss of their freedoms.

This what you are chosing.

Keep voting Red :thumbsup:

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Conservative communities such as "Polk County" dont care about stupid pieces of paper such as the consitution when there are obscene things like "sex" and "vulgarity" to stamp out of society. The neo-fascists march on through Florida

I don't feel sorry for Floridians or any Americans crying about loss of their freedoms.

This what you are chosing.

Keep voting Red :thumbsup:

Flamebait FTW!

 

[palehorse]

well, i highly suggest you study the Law of War and the Geneva Conventions... but, to give you a hint, it IS illegal for US soldiers to distribute photos of their dead enemies.

not only that, it's just a really dumb thing to do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
well, i highly suggest you study the Law of War and the Geneva Conventions... but, to give you a hint, it IS illegal for US soldiers to distribute photos of their dead enemies.

not only that, it's just a really dumb thing to do.

How true.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Welcome to Florida Law - courtesy of Jeb Bush & his Conservative backers.

We're here to mind your business for you.

Both sides enforce morality through govt. The left just has a different set of rules they want everyone to follow.