second. ivey in a porn!

If you really think about it, law and porn are like peanut butter and jelly. No one knows why, but man, they just work together.

You can always count on the New York Times for the best parodies of the New York Times. From the obscenity article that Lat linked to:

"In an era when pornography has exploded on the Web almost beyond measure, Ms. Fletcher is one of only a handful of people to have been singled out for prosecution on obscenity charges by the Bush administration. She faces six felony counts for operating a Web site called Red Rose, which featured detailed fictional accounts of the molesting, torture and sometimes gruesome murders of children under the age of 10, mostly girls. How Ms. Fletcher came to be selected for federal prosecution among the countless pornography purveyors is a vivid illustration of the fractured and uncertain state of the enforcement of obscenity law in the nation."

Hmmm, I don't know, I really wonder why it is that Ms. Fletcher came to be arbitrarily chosen for prosecution from among all the porn producers out there. Anyone may have an idea based on the paragraph I quoted?

Fed Soc.

Is it obvious why - but the NYTimes may be referring to similiar sites as hers

You can always count on Fed Soc for the best parodies of the principles of the Federalist Society... as usual, Fed Soc leaves out some very important points, like the fact that the "Red Rose" site in question is all TEXT stories, not photographs. Under that definition of obscenity, anyone who republishes the Grimm brothers' fairy tales could be prosecuted.

-------
As he thus spoke, the good dwarfs felt pity for him and gave him the coffin. The prince had his servants carry it away on their shoulders. But then it happened that one of them stumbled on some brush, and this dislodged from Snow-White's throat the piece of poisoned apple that she had bitten off. Not long afterward she opened her eyes, lifted the lid from her coffin, sat up, and was alive again.

"Good heavens, where am I?" she cried out.

The prince said joyfully, "You are with me." He told her what had happened, and then said, "I love you more than anything else in the world. Come with me to my father's castle. You shall become my wife." Snow-White loved him, and she went with him. Their wedding was planned with great splendor and majesty.

Snow-White's godless stepmother was also invited to the feast. After putting on her beautiful clothes she stepped before her mirror and said:

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who in this land is fairest of all?

The mirror answered:

You, my queen, are fair; it is true.
But the young queen is a thousand times fairer than you.

The wicked woman uttered a curse, and she became so frightened, so frightened, that she did not know what to do. At first she did not want to go to the wedding, but she found no peace. She had to go and see the young queen. When she arrived she recognized Snow-White, and terrorized, she could only stand there without moving.

Then they put a pair of iron shoes into burning coals. They were brought forth with tongs and placed before her. She was forced to step into the red-hot shoes and dance until she fell down dead.

8:20: Some well-meaning, reasonable people may have good reasons to argue that text alone should never be considered obscene (and thus unprotected), but your comparison is beyond ridiculous. There are of course the obvious points that the passage you quote does not even allude to sexual molestation, does not include graphic, detailed accounts of torture or murder (besides one line) and has obvious literary merits (not to mention the fact that it is not intended as a masturbatory aide to people who wish they could torture children in real life). But aside from all of this, do you even realize that it is not Snow White who dies a painful death (in which case you would at least have been able to claim that the fairy tale depicts a painful death of a minor. though still not a 10-year-old), but rather the evil stepmother? There is not even a murder here, as murder is by definition unjustified killing, and the stepmother -- a witchcraft practitioner who attempted to kill her step-daughter at least three times -- deserved to died.

I currently have an outstanding summer associate offer from Alston & Bird's DC office, but heard that several partners just announced that they are leaving the firm. Does anyone know what that is about?

Oh no, the Christofascists are taking away our constitutional right to depict "the molesting, torture and sometimes gruesome murders of children under the age of 10"! This is an outrageous violation of the separation of church and state!! Now they can ban Snow White and Harry Potter!! Somebody call the ACLU!!

12:05 - I'm with you. I can't imagine getting worked up about this.

Arguably weak analogies aside, this point stands unrefuted:

"You can always count on Fed Soc for the best parodies of the principles of the Federalist Society"

repulsive and disturbing as it is, i don't see where the legal line is between fictional works such as Red Rose and fictional works such as movies like Hostel, Saw (1-whatever), etc. so movies about raping, torturing, and mutilating 20-year-old women are OK, but 10-year-old girls are not? what about 18-year-olds? 13? 16?

i personally find both to be disgusting and obscene. do you really think there wasn't a single person who got off on those movies, and fantasizes about doing the same thing?

i'd think that someone who posts under a name like "Fed Soc" and purports to embrace Federalist Society principles would have more respect for individual liberties, despite the fact that em might find them personally objectionable.

or is this the new "defend government regulation to the hilt as long as it's not tax- or business-related," neo-con branch of the Fed Soc?

to clarify the above, the last sentence in the third paragraph compares movies featuring young women to text-only stories about minors.

9:48, well put. Also, wasn't Hostel about torturing teenagers (versus 20-year-olds)? I'm sure that *some* of the kids in that movie were supposed to be minors. Or how about Captivity? Why are we okay with showing the graphic molestation and abuse of women but not textually alluding to it w/r/t children? Aren't both reprehensible?

Jenna is hot

Gotta bring up Lolita.... Bannable? Ban-worthy?

But perhaps the point is that there's so much on the web that just as potentially prosecutable, how do you draw the line on what/when to prosecute?

Selective enforcement of any laws is an opportunity for arbitrary prosecution.

Like the firm rule book that says, "Thou shalt not use company e-mail for any private messages" and then only enforces that to fire someone that they WANT to fire anyhow, but have no other legitimate reason, knowing full-well that EVERYONE vbiolates that rule?