NationStates Jolt Archive

It's always good to see that tax dollars are being used to protect and promote good Christian morality. The Gestapo, um, I mean Pokola police department, have recently raided a porn shop and shut it down. They claim that "illegal" videos and magazines were being sold and that 40 people were witnessed committing sex acts.



Since when does a police department have the right to prosecute adults for having sex?

I wonder what passes for illegal magazines and videos in Oklahoma? I can't imagine a legitimate porn shop owner risking his profits and his liberty by actually selling illegal porn when the legal stuff is so profitable.

"This is trash, and I hope this is the end of it for our community and for the Christian community and everybody out here. I hope this is the end of it," said Pocola Police Chief Eric Helms.Nice. The Christian community has their own morality police. I'm sure that's totally constitutional and legal.

http://www.thehometownchannel.com/news/9180546/detail.html?rss=fts&psp=news

But... But... DAMN YOU CHRISTIANS! HOW DARE YOU DESTROY MY PORN!

Sex is evil and should be banned, forever.

I mean, seriously, it gives us stories about Prescott sleeping with his 40 something year old secretary.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/johnprescott1PA.jpg

*Shudders*

What cunts. They can't even realize that not everyone wants to believe the same things they do.

But... But... DAMN YOU CHRISTIANS! HOW DARE YOU DESTROY MY PORN!Not that you're old enough to legally obtain it anyway... :p

I wonder what passes for illegal magazines and videos in Oklahoma?
In Oklahoma, anything showing penetration is illegal. Of course, anything other than the missionary position for the purposes of procreation is also illegal. Especially if it is done in public.

What cunts. They can't even realize that not everyone wants to believe the same things they do.

As someone who's had to live around similar people, I can tell you with the fullest confidence that they realise exactly that. They just don't give a fuck if people don't want to live the way they do.

While this is admittedly a fairly shitty situation and the police were probably out of line, I don't know that there is enough information present to make a strong judgment call on the matter. The police chief mentions Christianity, but he may have simply been speaking from his own personal opinion; it is possible, although perhaps unlikely, that the police were justified within the context of local laws. I will say that based on the information provided, I can't identify anything about the porn shop that SHOULD have been illegal, so it may well be that the police and/or the local laws are kind of fucked up, but again, I don't have all the facts.

Officers said they could be there all night investigating.

Yeah, I'm SURE that is what they were doing in a porn shop for hours after the bust. No pun intended.

Yeah, I'm SURE that is what they were doing in a porn shop for hours after the bust. No pun intended.

:p

But Republicans who have poker parties with strippers and hookers is COMPLETELY fine, right?

Im so glad we have our priorities straight. In fact, it seems like they are trying to limit sex to the priviledged few aka rich republican congressmen.

In fact, it seems like they are trying to limit sex to the priviledged few aka rich republican congressmen.

What would that do to natural selection? I fear the very thought.

Sex is evil and should be banned, forever.

I mean, seriously, it gives us stories about Prescott sleeping with his 40 something year old secretary.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/johnprescott1PA.jpg

*Shudders*
yay another person with good morals

What would that do to natural selection? I fear the very thought.

Well, it would destroy it. Hey, maybe thats the christian agenda, to destroy evolution and anything evolution-related.

Well, it would destroy it. Hey, maybe thats the christian agenda, to destroy evolution and anything evolution-related.

Now it all makes sense! Thank You!

What would that do to natural selection? I fear the very thought.
Imagine an entire generation of little Dick Santorums and Ann Coulters.

BTW, I forgot Ann Coulter's name, so I entered "Right Wing ****" into google and spotted her name three or four search results down. Isn't the internet Amazing?

Imagine an entire generation of little Dick Santorums and Ann Coulters.

BTW, I forgot Ann Coulter's name, so I entered "Right Wing ****" into google and spotted her name three or four search results down. Isn't the internet Amazing?

*tries that out*

Hah! It's true! :D

Imagine an entire generation of little Dick Santorums and Ann Coulters.

BTW, I forgot Ann Coulter's name, so I entered "Right Wing ****" into google and spotted her name three or four search results down. Isn't the internet Amazing?Of course, if you don't use quotation marks, surprisingly enough Michelle Malkin makes it in first, with Coulter at a close second...

Of course, if you don't use quotation marks, surprisingly enough Michelle Malkin makes it in first, with Coulter at a close second...

Well, Anne Coulter was the original. Michelle malkin just realized that, by being an abrasive cuntal hole, you can be famous. And so now the student has become the master.

If this was illegal, then the ACLU would be crawling all over it like ants at a picnic. Seeing as they are not, it is reasonable to conclude that the police's actions were within the bounds of the law. And comparing them to the Gestapo is incredibly stupid and disrespectful.

This is exactly why I'm completely against States' Rights. What utter bullshit.

If this was illegal, then the ACLU would be crawling all over it like ants at a picnic. Seeing as they are not, it is reasonable to conclude that the police's actions were within the bounds of the law. And comparing them to the Gestapo is incredibly stupid and disrespectful.
You're right. The undercover stakeout, akin to domestic spying, makes them more like the Stasi.

This is exactly why I'm completely against States' Rights. What utter bullshit.

You don't think that Congress would pass similar laws if they thought they could get away with it? You have a lot more faith in them than I do.

You don't think that Congress would pass similar laws if they thought they could get away with it? You have a lot more faith in them than I do.

I never said that. I'm against any body, large or small, that legislates laws specifically made to oppress people.

States' Rights is one of the many things we need to get rid of.

States' Rights is one of the many things we need to get rid of.

Well, you and I have covered this ground before, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're right. The undercover stakeout, akin to domestic spying, makes them more like the Stasi.

You're right. In fact, the police should go around with blindfolds on so that no one can accuse them of an undercover stakeout. Or perhaps a fluorescent orange suit? Take your pick. The police did not violate a single law, did not infringe on anybody's civil liberties and stopped a criminal act -- a comparison with the Stasi is, quite frankly, retarded.

You're right. In fact, the police should go around with blindfolds on so that no one can accuse them of an undercover stakeout. Or perhaps a fluorescent orange suit? Take your pick. The police did not violate a single law, did not infringe on anybody's civil liberties and stopped a criminal act -- a comparison with the Stasi is, quite frankly, retarded.
Dude, they shut down a business for what? Because it sold porn (constitutionally protected speech), and because some guys were jerking off in the video booths. It's not illegal to jerk off on private property away from view of the public.

Yeah, they infringed on civil liberties.

Dude, they shut down a business for what? Because it sold porn (constitutionally protected speech), and because some guys were jerking off in the video booths. It's not illegal to jerk off on private property away from view of the public. Yeah, they infringed on civil liberties.

I don't know the full story since that article didn't say much, but the raid was obviously within the confines of the law. There are several types of "free speech" while are not protected under the Constitution if it can constitute public obscenity or somesuch law. I'm sure that this particular state had some harsh rule prohibiting such actions. I don't see any ACLU lawsuit or anything condemning the actions of the police and nobody has yet named what law the police broke during the raid. As such, it is safe to assume the whole thing was legit.

I don't know the full story since that article didn't say much, but the raid was obviously within the confines of the law. There are several types of "free speech" while are not protected under the Constitution if it can constitute public obscenity or somesuch law. I'm sure that this particular state had some harsh rule prohibiting such actions. I don't see any ACLU lawsuit or anything condemning the actions of the police and nobody has yet named what law the police broke during the raid. As such, it is safe to assume the whole thing was legit.

Just because it's "legit" doesn't mean it's right. The job of the state shouldn't be to enforce the majority's opinion of what's moral or not.

Just because it's "legit" doesn't mean it's right. The job of the state shouldn't be to enforce the majority's opinion of what's moral or not.

No, the state's job is to enforce whichever laws there exist in that particular state. If some of the laws are based on "morality" doesn't mean they are religious laws or anything like that. Any law is based on morality -- the concept of morality may vary from one state to the next. That's why the states should be left up to their own devices and have the power to enforce the laws that they feel are correct, not those that 9 old people think are correct. We shouldn't centralize power too much and put our faith in those 9 people -- we should leave laws that are open to opinion up to the states. This includes such things as this case, abortion, etc.

Just because it's "legit" doesn't mean it's right. The job of the state shouldn't be to enforce the majority's opinion of what's moral or not.
Right. They should enforce YOUR opinion of what's moral or not. Let's just forget the whole democracy idea altogether and have Wallonochia in charge. Somehow I don't think that will be any better.

Right. They should enforce YOUR opinion of what's moral or not. Let's just forget the whole democracy idea altogether and have Wallonochia in charge. Somehow I don't think that will be any better.
Naw they should just be out of the morality game all togeather. The only job they should really have is enforcing rights (meaning not allowing anyone to take away or infringe on anothers right)

I don't know the full story since that article didn't say much, but the raid was obviously within the confines of the law. There are several types of "free speech" while are not protected under the Constitution if it can constitute public obscenity or somesuch law. I'm sure that this particular state had some harsh rule prohibiting such actions. I don't see any ACLU lawsuit or anything condemning the actions of the police and nobody has yet named what law the police broke during the raid. As such, it is safe to assume the whole thing was legit.
I don't think it's safe to assume that at all. The article is dated May 8. It's still early. The ACLU may get involved at some later time, or the shop owner's own lawyer may challenge the constitutionality of the bust.

No, the state's job is to enforce whichever laws there exist in that particular state. If some of the laws are based on "morality" doesn't mean they are religious laws or anything like that. Any law is based on morality -- the concept of morality may vary from one state to the next. That's why the states should be left up to their own devices and have the power to enforce the laws that they feel are correct, not those that 9 old people think are correct. We shouldn't centralize power too much and put our faith in those 9 people -- we should leave laws that are open to opinion up to the states. This includes such things as this case, abortion, etc.
You argue that "any law is based on morality". Not necessarily true. Laws can be based on promoting and protectin liberty rather than on morality. Oh, and "those 9 people" have a job. Their job is to interpret the constitution and decide whether laws violate the protected freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. If you take "those 9 people" out of the loop then you've scrapped our system of government and our constitution.

Naw they should just be out of the morality game all togeather. The only job they should really have is enforcing rights (meaning not allowing anyone to take away or infringe on anothers right)

Exactly. It shouldn't be the state's business if someone wants to go to a porn shop and jack off in a little booth for that purpose.

And Begoned, I do agree with you on states' rights, but I don't agree on states' having laws that try and stop consenting adults from doing something that doesn't harm anyone.

Right. They should enforce YOUR opinion of what's moral or not. Let's just forget the whole democracy idea altogether and have Wallonochia in charge. Somehow I don't think that will be any better.

Wow, amazing how you got that out of what I said. I don't think the state should be enforcing anyone's idea of morality, they should just prevent people from harming one another, and that's about it. Obviously the good people of Oklahoma disagree with me, but that's the beauty of federalism.

Wow, amazing how you got that out of what I said. I don't think the state should be enforcing anyone's idea of morality, they should just prevent people from harming one another, and that's about it. Obviously the good people of Oklahoma disagree with me, but that's the beauty of federalism.

On a national level, I'd agree and say the government should keep out of it. On a local level, however, I think the residents of an area should be able to have laws like that. They're not infringing on the right of the business owner or the customers to do those things, as long as they don't do them in that area. Go to California or some place more liberal for that. This is a vast land catering to all kinds of people.

On a national level, I'd agree and say the government should keep out of it. On a local level, however, I think the residents of an area should be able to have laws like that. They're not infringing on the right of the business owner or the customers to do those things, as long as they don't do them in that area. Go to California or some place more liberal for that. This is a vast land catering to all kinds of people.
They sure are infringing on the rights of the business owner and on his clientel. One shouldn't be driven out of town for trying to run a business. A porn shop doesn't adversely affect the local community. It doesn't result in drunk driving like bars and liquor stores can, it doesn't pose an environmental hazzard the way agribusiness and factories can, it doesn't even contribute to obesity like restaurants can. It's harmless and benign, yet you argue that a community should be able to run it out of town. Give me one reason that such a store should be forced to close.

They sure are infringing on the rights of the business owner and on his clientel. One shouldn't be driven out of town for trying to run a business. A porn shop doesn't adversely affect the local community. It doesn't result in drunk driving like bars and liquor stores can, it doesn't pose an environmental hazzard the way agribusiness and factories can, it doesn't even contribute to obesity like restaurants can. It's harmless and benign, yet you argue that a community should be able to run it out of town. Give me one reason that such a store should be forced to close.
because it's illegal?

why would they run a marijuana bar out of town?

because it's illegal?

why would they run a marijuana bar out of town?
I think that if it's challenged in federal court the Oklahoma laws will be found unconstitutional.

I think that if it's challenged in federal court the Oklahoma laws will be found unconstitutional.
Hopefully it will

They sure are infringing on the rights of the business owner and on his clientel. One shouldn't be driven out of town for trying to run a business. A porn shop doesn't adversely affect the local community. It doesn't result in drunk driving like bars and liquor stores can, it doesn't pose an environmental hazzard the way agribusiness and factories can, it doesn't even contribute to obesity like restaurants can. It's harmless and benign, yet you argue that a community should be able to run it out of town. Give me one reason that such a store should be forced to close.
Certain kinds of sexual material have been shown by scientific studies and crime analysis to have contributed to the commission of crimes against women and children, perpetrated mostly by men who “consume” such material (see the scientific studies of Dr Victor B Cline, University of California, Edward Donnerstein, University of Wisconsin, and many others, which indicate that consumption of certain types of violent sexual portrayals do have a negative effect on both the individual user and society).

Certain kinds of sexual material have been shown by scientific studies and crime analysis to have contributed to the commission of crimes against women and children, perpetrated mostly by men who “consume” such material (see the scientific studies of Dr Victor B Cline, University of California, Edward Donnerstein, University of Wisconsin, and many others, which indicate that consumption of certain types of violent sexual portrayals do have a negative effect on both the individual user and society).
Bullshit. Causality can't be proven in such situations. You may find a correlation, but correlation isn't causation. Just because many sexual predators have porn collections doesn't mean that having a porn collection leads one to being a sexual predator. Just look at all the perfectly normal, law abiding people who also look at porn, some of it with S&M themes.

Bullshit. Causality can't be proven in such situations. You may find a correlation, but correlation isn't causation. Just because many sexual predators have porn collections doesn't mean that having a porn collection leads one to being a sexual predator. Just look at all the perfectly normal, law abiding people who also look at porn, some of it with S&M themes.

Given something they can't outright prove, the people in that area choose to protect themselves, just in case. Besides, how many other things do we generally believe, but can't prove outright? Cigarettes have not been proven to cause Cancer. There is a correllation, yes. But no outright proof. Many things in popular belief cannot be proven the way you would like. That doesn't make them any less true. And it doesn't make people want to protect themselves from the possibility any less.

[QUOTE=Police are still at the store, several hours after the 6 p.m. raid.
Officers said they could be there all night investigating.[/QUOTE]

I don't think they're investigating causality all night long, if you get my drift.

Given something they can't outright prove, the people in that area choose to protect themselves, just in case. Besides, how many other things do we generally believe, but can't prove outright? Cigarettes have not been proven to cause Cancer. There is a correllation, yes. But no outright proof. Many things in popular belief cannot be proven the way you would like. That doesn't make them any less true. And it doesn't make people want to protect themselves from the possibility any less.

Interesting how they would want to protect themselves from something with such a flimsy case against it, but not against something like alcohol, which has a much stronger case for causality in anti social behavior.

It's always good to see that tax dollars are being used to protect and promote good Christian morality. The Gestapo, um, I mean Pokola police department, have recently raided a porn shop and shut it down. They claim that "illegal" videos and magazines were being sold and that 40 people were witnessed committing sex acts.



Since when does a police department have the right to prosecute adults for having sex?

I wonder what passes for illegal magazines and videos in Oklahoma? I can't imagine a legitimate porn shop owner risking his profits and his liberty by actually selling illegal porn when the legal stuff is so profitable.

Nice. The Christian community has their own morality police. I'm sure that's totally constitutional and legal.

http://www.thehometownchannel.com/news/9180546/detail.html?rss=fts&psp=news

well if the city has an ordinance against the porn thing, then i see no problem with the city enforcing it. The comments about the christian community, however, are not needed, and should be seen seperate from the actual law and protection thereof.

Interesting how they would want to protect themselves from something with such a flimsy case against it, but not against something like alcohol, which has a much stronger case for causality in anti social behavior.
That's because in Oklahoma, since we can't have porn, we drink. LOL

Given something they can't outright prove, the people in that area choose to protect themselves, just in case. Besides, how many other things do we generally believe, but can't prove outright? Cigarettes have not been proven to cause Cancer. There is a correllation, yes. But no outright proof. Many things in popular belief cannot be proven the way you would like. That doesn't make them any less true. And it doesn't make people want to protect themselves from the possibility any less.
There is solid evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. There is no solid evidence that pornography causes any type of crime.

There is solid evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. There is no solid evidence that pornography causes any type of crime.
No there isn't.

No there isn't.
Laboratory tests have shown that exposure to chemicals in cigarette smoke cause test animals to develop cancer. That's pretty solid evidence. Now if you can round up a couple thousand rats, show them rat porn and show that a statistically significant percentage of the test rats engage in abnormal sexual violence you'd be on the same evidentially footing.

Laboratory tests have shown that exposure to chemicals in cigarette smoke cause test animals to develop cancer. That's pretty solid evidence. Now if you can round up a couple thousand rats, show them rat porn and show that a statistically significant percentage of the test rats engage in abnormal sexual violence you'd be on the same evidentially footing.

Exposure to chemicals causes cancer. Hmm... did they make little rat sized cigarettes for the rats to smoke? No. Just like with the sweet and low causes cancer tests they did where they practically submerged the rats in the stuff for a long time before anything happened. That doesn't prove that the small amounts (relatively) which are used have any effect at all. Many things, in moderation, are not bad for us when they are taken to such extremes. I'm not saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer, mind you. I'm just saying they haven't proven it either.

Exposure to chemicals causes cancer. Hmm... did they make little rat sized cigarettes for the rats to smoke? No. Just like with the sweet and low causes cancer tests they did where they practically submerged the rats in the stuff for a long time before anything happened. That doesn't prove that the small amounts (relatively) which are used have any effect at all. Many things, in moderation, are not bad for us when they are taken to such extremes. I'm not saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer, mind you. I'm just saying they haven't proven it either.
Shifting goalposts now? I never said proof. Proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics. I said strong evidence.

Shifting goalposts now? I never said proof. Proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics. I said strong evidence.

And the extremes used in those tests doesn't provide strong evidence of anything other than practically drowning in something, be it aspertaine or cigarette smoke or just the raw chemicals from cigarettes, is bad for you.

And the extremes used in those tests doesn't provide strong evidence of anything other than practically drowning in something, be it aspertaine or cigarette smoke or just the raw chemicals from cigarettes, is bad for you.
They provide evidence that exposure to those chemicals causes cancer. The way carcinogens work greater exposure will lead to a greater likelyhood of cancer, but less exposure still raises the probability of cancer developing when compared to control groups that aren't exposed.

many people do get fixated on porn though, sometimes addicted to it, making it a sort of mental health issue, no? Not saying that all people do though.

many people do get fixated on porn though, sometimes addicted to it, making it a sort of mental health issue, no? Not saying that all people do though.
Many people get fixated on television, food, and a whole lot of other things. We don't go around banning them.

As someone who's had to live around similar people, I can tell you with the fullest confidence that they realise exactly that. They just don't give a fuck if people don't want to live the way they do.
These types of people realise that sinners want porn, but they think that they know what's best for them (the sinners), so they ban porn.

Many people get fixated on television, food, and a whole lot of other things. We don't go around banning them.


good point... :)

show them rat porn

Mmmm.... rat porn

I wonder what you expected from the only state in the US where oral sex is still illegal....

And I agree with Silly English Knights that there's a 90% chance the police "investigation" was of a rather unusual sort. :p

They provide evidence that exposure to those chemicals causes cancer. The way carcinogens work greater exposure will lead to a greater likelyhood of cancer, but less exposure still raises the probability of cancer developing when compared to control groups that aren't exposed.

Again, the chemicals are not the smoke. Are the chemicals burned and the animals exposed to them at the same temperature as what is inhaled in a burning cigarette? Are they filtered through the same type of filter? There are so many things that could throw off a study like that. If you want to send me the write up of the study, I'll make a list for you. And I am talking about significantly less exposure through the actual use of the product than they used in those tests. The difference is on an order of magnitude. When you are looking at that kind of a difference, it doesn't tell you anything about the difference between someone smoking and someone breathing the normal air around them. Let's say X is the amount of exposure in their tests, and Y is the amount of exposure from actually smoking. Z is the amound of exposure to the same carcinogens a non smoker experiences. Y is a LOT closer to Z than it is to X. So the increase in your "chances" isn't that much different in actuality.

It is like using the example of someone eating 200 cherry pies a day while living submerged in cherry pie filling having died of a heart attack to tell someone who eats 1 slice of cherry pie a day they have a greater chance of dying of a heart attack than the person who smells the pie.

I wonder what you expected from the only state in the US where oral sex is still illegal....

And I agree with Silly English Knights that there's a 90% chance the police "investigation" was of a rather unusual sort. :p

I was kind of kidding because the statement seemed funny. But since the missionary position between people married to each other for the purposes of producing offspring is the only legal sex act in Oklahoma, I imagine they have a lot to "investigate." That is in regards to the activities in the back room. As to the actual products for sale, it is illegal to show penetration, so I imagine they had to watch all the videos and go through all the magazines to count the number of "violations".

Man this thread leads itself to a lot of double entendre.

Again, the chemicals are not the smoke. Are the chemicals burned and the animals exposed to them at the same temperature as what is inhaled in a burning cigarette? Are they filtered through the same type of filter? There are so many things that could throw off a study like that. If you want to send me the write up of the study, I'll make a list for you. And I am talking about significantly less exposure through the actual use of the product than they used in those tests. The difference is on an order of magnitude. When you are looking at that kind of a difference, it doesn't tell you anything about the difference between someone smoking and someone breathing the normal air around them. Let's say X is the amount of exposure in their tests, and Y is the amount of exposure from actually smoking. Z is the amound of exposure to the same carcinogens a non smoker experiences. Y is a LOT closer to Z than it is to X. So the increase in your "chances" isn't that much different in actuality.

It is like using the example of someone eating 200 cherry pies a day while living submerged in cherry pie filling having died of a heart attack to tell someone who eats 1 slice of cherry pie a day they have a greater chance of dying of a heart attack than the person who smells the pie.
Dude, even Phillip Morris admits that the evidence shows cigarettes cause cancer. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9404E1D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. I'm not buying.

I was kind of kidding because the statement seemed funny. But since the missionary position between people married to each other for the purposes of producing offspring is the only legal sex act in Oklahoma, I imagine they have a lot to "investigate." That is in regards to the activities in the back room. As to the actual products for sale, it is illegal to show penetration, so I imagine they had to watch all the videos and go through all the magazines to count the number of "violations".
Of course. Anything else would be unthinkable...

Man this thread leads itself to a lot of double entendre.
Hahaha.

Dude, even Phillip Morris admits that the evidence shows cigarettes cause cancer. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9404E1D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. I'm not buying.

You're funny. I never said I did not believe that smoking causes cancer. You wanted proof that pornography causes other ill effects, both to the individual and to society. I said there was no way to prove it, much like they haven't been able to prove that cigarettes cause cancer. Just because a few poorly conceived tests have been broadcast as proof by the anti-smoking lobby and anyone else who wanted to pick it up, doesn't make it good proof, or even strong evidence. I do believe that smoking causes cancer, but there is no good, ethical way to prove it.

This is exactly why I'm completely against States' Rights. What utter bullshit.
An anarchist who thinks that the central government should have the power to stop this sort of thing?

You argue that "any law is based on morality". Not necessarily true. Laws can be based on promoting and protectin liberty rather than on morality.Liberty and different peoples' concepts of it are based in morality. Not necessarily religious morality, but morality nonetheless.

Interesting how they would want to protect themselves from something with such a flimsy case against it, but not against something like alcohol, which has a much stronger case for causality in anti social behavior.

Actually, Oklahoma does protect against alcohol...They have a State Commission charged with doing just that. :)

http://www.able.state.ok.us/index.html

I think that if it's challenged in federal court the Oklahoma laws will be found unconstitutional.

Why? To be consistent, one would think they'd use some version of the Miller test, namely that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material. Obscene material is there defined as such that a) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . .; b) 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.

The "community standards," by the way, are those of the local community. In other words, generally speaking if a judge properly instructs a jury as to the appropriate tests (above), whatever the jury says goes.

What a sad world for porn lovers. (Of course, the Court has also ruled that the state cannot regulate private ownership of obscene material... so you just have to get your hands on it.) ;)

Why? To be consistent, one would think they'd use some version of the Miller test, namely that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material. Obscene material is there defined as such that a) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . .; b) 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.

The "community standards," by the way, are those of the local community. In other words, generally speaking if a judge properly instructs a jury as to the appropriate tests (above), whatever the jury says goes.

What a sad world for porn lovers. (Of course, the Court has also ruled that the state cannot regulate private ownership of obscene material... so you just have to get your hands on it.) ;)

You are really getting into those political courses aren't you?

The "community standards," by the way, are those of the local community.

what always gets me is the fact that these porn shops don't seem to go out of business due to lack of customers or vocal protests, boycotts, and pickets.

Actually, Oklahoma does protect against alcohol...They have a State Commission charged with doing just that. :)

http://www.able.state.ok.us/index.html

Yeah, but that's regarding the licensing and taxation of alcohol, not banning it. All they're doing is making sure the state gets a cut. As far as I know all states have something similar.

The PD chief should be behead via giant papercut, achieved with the Constitution. :p

I'll watch consenting adults :fluffle: as much as I want, and I'll be damned if anyone is gonna tell me otherwise.

shouldnt cops be doing something usefull?

You are really getting into those political courses aren't you?

I took my oral exam on civil liberties this Monday. :)