On 14 Jan 2004 at 3:02, ANTIcarrot wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Falbert Forester [mailto:albert_at_polaris.umpi.maine.edu]
>> Sent: 13 January 2004 4:57 PM
>> To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [SkunkworksAMA] Legal publishing in the US (was: Re:
>> Uh...just wondering...where's Jim?)
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2004 at 11:52, ANTIcarrot wrote:
>> >> From: radiocomixcog [mailto:radiocomixcog_at_yahoo.com]
>> >
>> >Sorry to hear you've had such a bad time of it lately. :(
>> I'll buy some more 'comix at the next opportunity. ;)
>> >
>> >> I think being able to read or look at
>> >> whatever we want (as long as it's not illegal and we're adults) is
>> >> part of our constitutional rights
>> >
>> >Um, forgive a non-American for asking for a little clarification on this point
>> >but...
>> >
>> >The term legal and illegal means things that the government does and
>> >does not want us to do, and in this context it means things the
>> >government thinks we should be able to look at and things we shouldn't
>> >be able to look at. Given that, does it really make sense to talk about
>> >a 'constitutional right' to look at anything you want, unless the
>> >government doesn't want you to? Yes I know the phrasing is something
>> >like 'make no law abridging the freedom of the press' but it's
>> >basically the same thing isn't it? What's the point of not restricting
>> >the press if you restrict people's eyes?
>> >
>> >I know you're a business and therefore have to say certain things to
>> >prevent yourselves from being sued, but to anyone else, does that seem
>> >a little contradictory?
>> >
>> >ANTIcarrot.
>> >PS: With exceptions for copyright, privacy, and misrepresentation.
>>
>> Dear ANTIcarrot,
>>
>> Hopefully I can clear this up a little bit. While I am not a
>> constitutional law lawyer, I have had to do a fair amount of reading on
>> this subject, due to my job.
>
>Ah, then that would be a, "Yes it is." ^.^
>
>Hopefully that silly rulling will be over turned soon. Since large
>portions of the male (and female?) American population has benifited
>from (or at least is willing to pay for) access to purient material the
>ruling could even be said to be contradictory. Even if that weren't so
>it is rather hard to define 'community'. Does that mean the town where
>RB is based, or where it does it's printing, or a state of national
>basis, or even the online or online-furry community. ;)
>
>Nothing that dumb should be let near a judge's bench. Oh well...
>ANTIcarrot.
So far as I am aware, the United States Supreme Court has not allowed
local laws restricting the publication of various materials... they
have only allowed laws that restrict the sale and distribution of
various publications within local jurisdictions. In this case, "local
jurisdiction" appears to be any area from the state, county, or
municipal levels. This appears to mean, in practice, that you can have
your materials printed anywhere, but it's the distributor who sells
them that gets in trouble. :-(
This is not uncommon for various laws in the U.S. In my own state of
Maine, whether or not to prohibit sale of alcoholic beverages is, by
state law, a matter for individual towns to write laws about. So, some
towns do allow the sale of alcohol, and some don't.
Since I live just a short distance from Canada, I've also looked at the
laws there. Quebec province has the most lenient legislation, but most
of the other provinces are pretty unrestrictive of "adult" material.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/ )
has been told repeatedly by judges that "non-obscene" materials of a
sexual nature are allowed into the country... in practice, this is
pretty hit-or-miss. Sometimes items will get seized, sometimes not.
This is generating more court cases, though, and sooner or later, the
Supreme Court of Canada will probably get around to disciplinary action
against the Customs Agency. As one other writer on this thread has
written, the S.C.ofC. does _not_ like to have to repeat itself to
reinforce rulings already made.
Hope this helps,
Falbert
===========================================================
Falbert Forester albert_at_umpi.maine.edu
Falbert_at_FurryMuck, Tapestries, SPR, and elsewhere
"I've often thought that the underlying fabric of the
universe is plaid." - me
Received on Thu Jan 15 2004 - 14:25:54 CST