Sex In The Public Square - censorship - Comments

Now there's an interesting idea.

Lou FCD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:41:53 -0700

Makes just as much sense as the Krial case.

Back Fire

Kelly — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:12:07 -0700

I find the Staunton, Virginia pornography case very disturbing. So disturbing that I need to approach the issue tongue in cheek (maybe.)

At one point in my life, I was married. At one point in my marriage, I was involved in marriage counseling (as a counselee.) At one point in counseling, I made passing mention of a drawer full of Romance Novels (of the Harlequin variety), complaining that these, in my opinion had no literary value. The counselor calmly advised me that these were not meant to have any socially redeeming value, they were most commonly accepted as ‘Women’s Pornography’.

Aha! What is needed is to find some rational prosecutor (I know, an oxymoron) who doesn’t mind some notoriety. The case is simple. I am aware that the local grocery and the local book store both sell these novels with obscenely half clad men standing while a woman swoons at his feet. Now, even without reading the book I can imagine what perverted things must be between the covers. In addition to the imagery, I have been told that this sort of material is pornographic for women. Certainly, it must appeal to a woman’s baser instinct. Certainly, I am embarrassed to admit what I imagine women are feeling, even doing, as they read this smut.

I want this brought to trial. I will testify as ‘Average Citizen’ that I am morally offended and that the community is being undermined as women sneak these pernicious novels home, buried beneath the cucumbers and chocolate bars, and while away in prurient pursuit when their proper position should be cleaning and cooking for the true hero of their life, their upstanding, and on the short list for deacon, husband.

Am I joking? I don’t know. Should the woman who was forced to leave the mall where she bought the dress that caused her eviction sue the store that sold it to her? Can the woman in L.A. sue the Federal Government and the security company ofr emblams symbolic of war on their uniforms?

Noise has to be made. Can it be made by bringing suits as much nuisance suits as the ones being pursued by the government. Would the media coverage wake anybody up?

How to "do something"

Elizabeth — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:40:14 -0700

ED, yes, on the left-hand sidebar is a "Speak out" box that has a link to Capwiz's "Contact the Media" page, where you can easily find electronic addresses to which you can send letters to the editors of your local media, and also a "Contact Congress" link where you can type in your zip code and via Congress.org (a non-profit organization, not the government itself) you can be instantly connected to your representatives in local, state and federal government.

Thank you so much for dropping by and for passing along what you find here!

Posting this

ED — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:18:02 -0700

Found this via Susie Bright's blog. Am posting it to usenet. Agree with you about both the slap to freedom that it is to prosecute for selling legal vids with a legal license etc, and also agree with what I believe you imply, that the sup court decision needs to be changed, too. And thanks for voicing something I'd thought/said before myself, what the HELL is the problem with something "prurient" in the sense of "arousing the audience sexually" So it's OK to affect the audience in 101 other ways like terrifying them, subjecting them to violence and gore,as well as make them sad, happy, joyful, hopefull, depressed, anxious, etc, etc, etc, but that one aspect of human reaction, arousal, is a no-no?? Come on folks. If we have to limit (not ban) anything it would be the violence extreme graphic de-sensitization ones that make it like "oh, they are torturing some people? Well, that's just life.." type of reactin in our citizenry

Short question/request: is there a page for action/alert/letters, etc, so I can include that next time I pass this long to others on other boards, so people can get off their butts (or stay on them, and let their keyboards to the walking) but do something? both on this case but more importantly,to take action to change the fed as well as state laws and to put pressure on prosecuters not to do this? any/all of the above..thanks!

Dee, in the US it seems that

Elizabeth — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:26:15 -0700

Dee, in the US it seems that all things anti-porn are possible. One thing that is especially troubling to me is that the arbitrary nature of "community standards" put porn purveyors at special risk because they could be operating with all the proper licenses and permits, stocking porn that is produced legally, and still be prosecuted for carrying some material that is judged to be obscene based on local standards. In this case, for example, only one of the two films was judged to be obscene. If Krial had stocked only Sugar Britches-type would he have been safe from conviction?

That's absolutely appalling!

Curvaceous Dee — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:26:30 -0700

That's absolutely appalling! I had no idea that such charges could still be bought forward in this day and age.

You've given me something to chew on. Thank you.

xx Dee

Fear of Creepy Crawlies

JanieBelle — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:45:01 -0800

This article at LiveScience bears directly on this:

Fear of snakes is one of the most common phobias, yet many people have never seen a snake in person. So how is this fear generated?

New research suggests humans have evolved an innate tendency to sense snakes — and spiders, too — and to learn to fear them.

Psychologists found that both adults and children could detect images of snakes among a variety of non-threatening objects more quickly than they could pinpoint frogs, flowers or caterpillars. The researchers think this ability helped humans survive in the wild.

(More at the link.)

Odd. It almost sounds like they still love him too.

Elizabeth — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:17:22 -0800

Odd. Via Feminist Law Profs I just found a link to the W&M Board of Visitors statement about the non-renewal of Gene Nichol's contract. It almost sounds like they love him too. Except for some unnamed irreconcilable differences.

Thank you

JanieBelle — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:09:03 -0800

but no. :( My book isn't finished. I just kind of burned out and needed a day or two off. I've got a fairly long passage that just is not making me happy, and it's nagging me so I can't get on with the story until I've dealt with it.

Plus, there are health-care crises running rampant throughout the FCD household. :(

I've been keeping an eye out here though, both through the RSS feed on the bottom of my blog and through my shiny new RSS reader for FireFox.

Welcome back, JB!

Elizabeth — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:16:42 -0800

Hey JanieBelle, welcome back! We've made a few changes since you were last around.

Does this mean your book is finished? ;)

Virginia Beach PD also disagrees

JanieBelle — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:40:20 -0800

...with the FCC :

Police, saying they were responding to citizen complaints, carted away two large promotional photographs from the Abercrombie & Fitch store in Lynnhaven Mall on Saturday and cited the manager on obscenity charges.
Adam Bernstein, a police spokesman, said the seizure and the issuance of the summons came only after store management had not heeded warnings to remove the images.
The citation was issued under City Code Section 22.31, Bernstein said, which makes it a crime to display "obscene materials in a business that is open to juveniles." He did not say what was being done with the pictures and when the manager, whose name was not released, is scheduled to appear in court.

The images in question?

The other image is of a woman who is topless and whose "breast is displayed with her hand covering just the nipple portion," Bernstein said. "You could still pretty much see the rest of the breast."

HT: The Information Paradox

ABC News is reporting however , that on Monday, Virginia Beach PD dropped the charges.

Posters of scantily clad youths that were seized by police at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in a Virginia mall this weekend may be inappropriate for young children, but they are not obscene, according to legal experts.
Virginia Beach police apparently have agreed. On Monday, they dropped charges against the clothing company that markets to prep chic teens through sexually charged imagery.

I guess the question now is did they drop the charges for reasons of sanity or expediency? Hopefully, somebody in charge pulled their collective heads from their collective ~~butts~~ obscene place, but I suspect that the real reason is that the local DA told them they'd be on the losing end of a very expensive First Amendment suit.

Was the police response to the store an overreaction? Yes, according to legal experts. Though local laws can vary, courts require that the image show sexual activity or a "lewd display" of genitals, says Lawrence Walters, an Orlando, Fla., lawyer and First Amendment specialist.
"There is not a chance any jury in America would find the photo obscene under these standards," he said.

Apparently, MySpace Disagrees

JanieBelle — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:28:27 -0800

...with the FCC .

"I compare my local folder to the album, one picture at a time. Want to know what picture they found offensive?"

"That’s right. A photo of a 2000 year old Roman piece of art is offensive because it depicts a naked acrobat’s butt."

Those darned porn moguls at the British Museum, exposing us to naked butts. What is the world coming to?

I think the 'reproductive

Gracie — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:32:11 -0800

I think the 'reproductive angle' for lack of a better term ~ and let's face it, visual concept help *wink* ~ is what's the issue here...

There's long been a rule with comedy: Pants a man = funny; but never pants a woman. The difference is percieved vulnerability. A woman sans pants is deemed easier to access, if not use; but a man is considered unlikely to force. This, of course, isn't the complete truth; men can be/are raped. But the nakedness of women has a long history of use to convey vulnerability and fear ~ as well as arousal (there is a link between fear and arousal). And men cannot help themselves from being aroused at female nudity; only women can exert such control. Sexist, yes; however this leads us back to the male arousal at female bums is more 'proof' of female vulnerability.

I think the bottom line here (pun intended) is one of vulnerability. 'She' naked is vulnerable; 'he' naked is in control.

Context is key here, and that's not exactly the FCC's forte.

Reproductive v. Sexual

Elizabeth — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:32:24 -0800

Maybe the FCC needs to distinguish between reproductive organs and sexual organs. After all, even the FCC couldn't justify the categorizing of buttocks as reproductive could they? And can you imagine any part of the body that isn't somehow sexual, if by sexual we mean contributing to sexual response or arousal? Certainly they wouldn't stop the broadcasting of images of hands, would they? Or flashes of any exposed skin? Perish the thought!

Of course I don't think that the showing of nude bodies is indecent in the first place.

And as for accountability, Latest Visitor, I share your concern. The accountability has to come from us!

The gender bias is

Latest Visitor — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:14:34 -0800

The gender bias is noteworthy, but my first take on the story was that it's just another example of a self-appointed imperative to redefine things on an arbitrary basis. I am trying to think of some substantive real world examples (as distinct from Orwell stories), but in their absence, have come up with the idea behind 'Freedom Fries': replacing 'French' on the presumption that it would somehow make the food more patriotic. (Sorry I haven't come up with better.) In the case of NYPD Blue, the issue is about redefining female buttocks as a sexual organ. Never mind what biologists say. For broadcast purposes, the FCC is in a position to arbitrarily and inconsistently dictate such things on its own terms. For me, the worrying thing is that they are unnacountable.