RE: Legislation... what's the difference between prostitution and porn?

[Ziggurat]

So community standard is just another term for majority rule?

Of course it is.

If that's so, then the courts should just kick it back to the legislature and not make their own determinations on these issues.

That would be preferable, but the government doesn't have to act optimally.

And, there is a principle in place that the majority cannot vote away anyone's First Amendment rights.

Sure.

I disagree. The majority religion is not allowed to vote in a state religion.

That's not what I meant. Yes, there are limits to the power of community standards. But within those limits, the standards are whatever the majority wants them to be.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not what I meant. Yes, there are limits to the power of community standards. But within those limits, the standards are whatever the majority wants them to be.

Yes, I understand. But obscenity cases are in fact First Amendment cases.

And the Miller Test (from this case) says that the courts should use local standards to decided whether or not something is obscene. That is, it's up to the courts to make the decision--something that really isn't majority rule. If it were simply a matter of majority rule, then such matters wouldn't end up in court. (Statutes are passed by majority vote of one sort or another. So if community standards equalled majority rule, then it would be no different than if the court said that state and local governments can pass laws banning any speech they consider to be obscene, and that's not what the courts have said.)

At any rate, I think the idea of community standards is intentionally vague. It leaves open the "I'll know it when I see it" definition of obscenity (rather than any explicit standard that might be applied consistently), and therefore allow for abridgment of First Amendment rights.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So community standard is just another term for majority rule? If that's so, then the courts should just kick it back to the legislature and not make their own determinations on these issues.

Of course majority rule is just another term for what ever you can get laws you can get passed. With out regard to the percentage of the population that supports it.

 

[I Ratant]

Of course majority rule is just another term for what ever you can get laws you can get passed. With out regard to the percentage of the population that supports it.

.
The "majority" is the part of the population that participates in the procedure.
They have more votes for than the minority has against.
Whether both sets are a true mathematical majority/minority of the available population isn't part of the procedure.
Those that don't participate have self-voted themselves out of either set.

 

[ponderingturtle]

.
The "majority" is the part of the population that participates in the procedure.
They have more votes for than the minority has against.
Whether both sets are a true mathematical majority/minority of the available population isn't part of the procedure.
Those that don't participate have self-voted themselves out of either set.

It doesn't matter about votes. If they can get enough politicians to go along with it is law. Now sure if there is enough strong opinion against it it will not work. But really how many politicians have ever gotten booted for not repealing laws like preventing strip clubs from showing too much skin?

It is that it drives the anti strip club crowd in who they will vote for, but most people who think the law is dumb care more about other things.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course majority rule is just another term for what ever you can get laws you can get passed. With out regard to the percentage of the population that supports it.

But even so, we have safeguards against the tyranny of the majority--especially when it comes to the Lockian "natural rights" enshrined in our Bill of Rights (such as freedom of speech).

I don't think the court's use of community standards means majority rule. I think it's something a lot more slippery than that. And eventually, I think it's going to go away.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't matter about votes. If they can get enough politicians to go along with it is law. Now sure if there is enough strong opinion against it it will not work. But really how many politicians have ever gotten booted for not repealing laws like preventing strip clubs from showing too much skin?

It is that it drives the anti strip club crowd in who they will vote for, but most people who think the law is dumb care more about other things.

The important question isn't whether a politician will repeal anti-obscenity laws. It's about whether the courts will strike them down as unconstitutional, IMO.

 

[fuelair]

Can someone clarify this for me... maybe I have confused myself.

Porn is sex for money on camera
Prostitution is sex for money.

Why does (some) countries allow porn but not prostitution? What is the justification?

Porn is non contact, prostitution is contact. Whether that is the reason or not, I do not know (and I doubt you would get the same reason for justifying one but not the other regardless of which is which in any given two countries).

Laws are like bad sausages: a real mess no matter how you slice them. (AFAIK, that one is original with me.) Laws on sex or anything related to it are generally worse than the average.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Porn is non contact, prostitution is contact.

I don't think that's true. I know they're doing a lot with CGI, but I don't think it's totally displaced live-action porn. . .

 

[KingMerv00]

Porn is non contact, prostitution is contact.

You are really really really wrong...so I hear.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ask John Holmes if it was non-contact.

 

[I Ratant]

We are separated from what killed Johnny Wadd by the video tape.

 

[KingMerv00]

So far, the best attempts to explain the difference between porn and prostitution have been "porn stars may not get paid" and "porn does not involve physical contact".

...Really?

 

[I Ratant]

Engaging the services of a prostitute involves contact.
Viewing porn, no.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Engaging the services of a prostitute involves contact.
Viewing porn, no.

But making porn involves paying someone for sex, rather like marriage.

 

[fuelair]

I don't think that's true. I know they're doing a lot with CGI, but I don't think it's totally displaced live-action porn. . .

For you and others: direct physical contact with the customer (potentially leading to disease and bad neighborhoods and untaxed activity) as opposed to no contact with the customer (potentially leading to taxes paid on purchase, no disease, delivery by mail/ computer so no bad neighborhood). YMMV.

 

[dudalb]

Time for me to see "Boogie Nights" again.

 

[fuelair]

Though not all that frequent, I occasionally give straight answers to questions. With the explanation closest above this, I filled it out from the basic, but correct, liklihood/reason for the distinction and the law difference.

 

[morgasm]

you cant get AIDS watching porn

 

[I Ratant]

you cant get AIDS watching porn

.
And if the porn is merely CGI, the only money involved goes to the artist, and no one has any contact with anything, other than pencil to paper.
Images can't spread diseases, no how!