jmatonak

Let's examine some facts about obscenity prosecutions.

From time to time, the federal (United States) government employs a tactic of multiple prosecutions in obscenity cases. This is similar to a kind of denial of service attack; the government prosecutes a "pornographer" in so many jurisdictions that the cost of defense, even when the likelihood of a conviction in each venue is very small, becomes prohibitive.

Another prosecutorial tactic is "forum shopping." The government cherry-picks one or more jurisdictions where it believes the local definition of "obscenity" will result in a conviction, and orders material to be sent to these jurisdictions. This tactic is often employed in cases where local authorities decline to prosecute. It has been employed historically in several cases where an initial prosecution in the defendant's community found that the material in question did not violate local community standards.

(The factual claims I make here are supported in Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser.)

I await with interest the roll-out of LJ's one-click abuse reporting, and examples of content that LJ considers unacceptable regardless of its legality.

[LJ will remove] content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment.

The abuse of children in any form? I was just over at some friends' house, and I really felt they should have taken a harder line in disciplining their child- bed without dinner, that sort of thing. I sure hope that's not "advocating the abuse of children." What if I said they should have given the kid a spanking?

You don't care about the First Amendment. That's fine, Six Apart is not an arm of the government and doesn't have to. Everything you say, lj_biz, tells me you don't want me here. I get the message.