fan_from_texas;819198 wrote:I have a kid. I think it's best that his mother and I make decisions about his entertainment, not some bureaucrat in Madison.

Say Wisconsin enacted a similar law. How is some bureaucrat in your capital making decisions for you and your wife? All the state is saying is the decision should go through you. The only restriction that I can see on you and your wife personally would be the ability to send your minor child out on his own to purchase the material in question. Don't worry I have not heard of any such law being pushed in Wisconsin. Your state is safe from this aggressious tyranny. At least for now.

Manhattan Buckeye;819231 wrote:This is their obscenity statute - practically all states have it. But I can't think of any case where one has been upheld unless there was egregious sexual content that appealed to the "prurient interest." I'd hate to be be the Tennessee assistant AG that tries to argue that the state can prevent someone from renting Rambo V: This Time it's Serious.

I agree the state would have a hell of a time criminally prosecuting the renting of Rambo V. But in the California argument they cite a video game that allows the user to experience the following:

The game involves the shooting of both armed opponents, such as police officers, and unarmed opponents such as school girls. Girls attacked with a shovel will beg for mercy; the player can be merciless and decapitate them. People shot in the leg will fall down and crawl; the player can then pour gasoline over them, set them on fire, and urinate over them. The players character makes sardonic comments during all this; for example urinating on someone elicits the comment "now the flowers will grow."

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1906_brown_petition.pdf

I trust state government to see the difference. If I recall correctly Justice Thomas alluded to this in that lower level courts or state government are able to reasonably flesh out this difference. If the state government uses their law against Sly send it upstream.

Manhattan Buckeye;819231 wrote: Read the statute - there is a provision that it has to be deemed "harmful to minors" - hence the compelling state interest. California couldn't meet the compelling interest burden, particularly when there is already a self-governing body.

California Senator Yee argued the state law met the compelling interest burden. The majority did not concur. If Obama is re-elected God help us if one or two particular justices leaves the court. Get ready for the pendulum to swing the other way.

majorspark;819305 wrote:I agree the state would have a hell of a time criminally prosecuting the renting of Rambo V. But in the California argument they cite a video game that allows the user to experience the following:

The game involves the shooting of both armed opponents, such as police officers, and unarmed opponents such as school girls. Girls attacked with a shovel will beg for mercy; the player can be merciless and decapitate them. People shot in the leg will fall down and crawl; the player can then pour gasoline over them, set them on fire, and urinate over them. The players character makes sardonic comments during all this; for example urinating on someone elicits the comment "now the flowers will grow."

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1906_brown_petition.pdf

I trust state government to see the difference. If I recall correctly Justice Thomas alluded to this in that lower level courts or state government are able to reasonably flesh out this difference. If the state government uses their law against Sly send it upstream.

Read the statute - there is a provision that it has to be deemed "harmful to minors" - hence the compelling state interest. California couldn't meet the compelling interest burden, particularly when there is already a self-governing body.

[/QUOTE]

It is still make believe. The difference between graphic violence and graphic sexual behavior is that the latter is real. If someone makes a violent film or video game the action is fake. Not that I'm the biggest pornography expert, but it is difficult to fake most of what is happening when pornography is provided.

The Human Centipede might be a lousy film, but it isn't real, the producers didn't attach mouths to butts for the film. Its free speech, and awful acting, but not obscenity.

For those trumpeting enumerated rights. What about the 2nd amendment? Anyone with history on here knows my beliefs concerning the right to bare arms. Most states have bans on the sale of arms to minors. I believe Ohio bans the sale of handguns 21 and under.

LJ keeps up on Oho gun laws. I am sure he knows. If not I will check it out tomorrow if I have time. Never had to check it out because my minor children are not that interested at this point in their life in guns. I know some states actually ban the use of arms until a state defined age.

I believe the right to bare arms is fundamental to our freedom. The final check of the people against government run amok. Though enumerated, It should not disparage rights that are not. Any attempt by any level of government to take this right away will be met with violent force by many Americans, including myself. Yet I have no fear that this right is being abridged by my state not allowing my 13yr old to go by a shotgun of his own free will outside of my legal parental authority.

I will buy it for him and teach him how to use it. I will teach him the founders intent concerning our right to bare arms. It is not primarily meant to secure a right to hunt. Its primary (Uh Oh I used the word primary must mean I don't believe there is a right to us arms to hunt) meaning in the context of the Constitution is the right to do what the founders did and throw off their tyrannical government. If that government did not allow them to do so the tools for the individual were preserved to use violent force to through them off.

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-30-2011/moral-kombat?xrs=share_copy[/video]

Manhattan Buckeye;819306 wrote:It is still make believe. The difference between graphic violence and graphic sexual behavior is that the latter is real. If someone makes a violent film or video game the action is fake. Not that I'm the biggest pornography expert, but it is difficult to fake most of what is happening when pornography is provided.

Make believe has nothing to do with it. Say after the prince kisses snow white they strip naked and bump uglies. Cartoon style. I can't imagine any of the current laws governing the dissemination of sexual material to minors would see any difference between make believe sex and real sex. With today's technology its not all that different visually.

Yes, something natural and that everyone will eventually do in their life is banned. Yet something that no one should ever do in real life and are the most horrible acts/crimes in the world is freedom of speech...


the way i see it, if the legal definition of marriage can be changed, why not the definition of obscene? only 1 part of the 3 part test actually references sex.

fan_from_texas;819198 wrote: I think it's best that his mother and I make decisions about his entertainment, not some bureaucrat in Madison.

I agree with that. I just don't see how the California law imposes upon or restricts your ability or interests as a parent to decide what's best for your child. If anything, it would protect your child from those who aim to undermine your role as a parent.