|
The United States of America is the country within which this web site
is served and for which jurisdiction falls.
The United States Supreme Court, the authority of all federal, state,
county, parish, city and town laws enacted in this nation, established
it's current definition of obscenity in the case of Miller v.
California
Miller v. California defined a three-part test:
- That an "average person, applying contemporary community
standards" would find the work, taken as a whole, appealing to the
prurient interest.
- The work, taken as a whole, must be "Patently offensive."
- The work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value.
All three parts must be met for a work to be ruled obscene and outside
of constitutional protection.
A portion of the stories and images in this web site may be offensive
to some people. However they may appeal, when considering the internet
community for which they are intended they are not so.
This web site contains content that matches its "contemporary
community standards"
The information contained in this site is intended to informative. It
does not make sense that a site, designed to enlighten and inform, could
be considered "patently offensive."
Additionally artists and writers have put a great deal into their work
that appears here. They have put their artistic talent to use in creating
this work. Hence, this is art of significant value in their eyes. In some
cases portions of their livelihood are based upon it's sale and appeal to
its intended audience. This is an artistically based offering.
As a whole this site does contain "serious literary, artistic, ...
or scientific value."
Considering that this site meets none of the parts of this test, it is
legally not obscene.
Offensive and obscene are legally very different. While this site may
offend you, it is Constitutionally protected speech. You are
not required to view it.
|
|
A note concerning Minors:
In Ginsberg v. New York tighter standards for minors were
upheld, with works of artistic intents excluded from regulation. While I
stand behind the reasoning that artists created and art is contained
within this site, I do not feel that this site is designed for or is
appropriate for minors.
When possible attempts shall be made to mark sections as inappropriate
for minors and to notify various minor-protection software makers that
this site should not be viewed by said.
|
|
And concerning parental responsibility...
For a word on parental responsibility, Lori Fena, executive
director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
What [Reno v. ACLU] means is that the responsibility for
controlling our content lies on us -- the citizens and the parents -- and
this is a call for all of us once again to demonstrate how we can trusted
to use this medium responsibly."
I have done my part. Please do yours.
|
