Anti-Porn Group Plans Civil Litigation
 

This could be worst than ~2257 in the land where people sue for millions of $$$s for lost pants. All we need is a whole bunch of Frivolous Litigation eating up lawyers fees. Although I would expect that Vexatious Litigation more aptly describes their propossal.

...there is also talk of presenting "scientific evidence" that pornography causes "physiological harm," as determined by the likes of Dr. Judith Reisman.
The one who |pokefun|invented 'erototoxins'!
http://avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=70...D56D7C03A46730

They are like the fucking American version of the Taliban. With all the problems in the world - you would think they could find something else to worry about.

Hey, they take comments on their blog http://www.familyfragments.com. Maybe we should show 'em how web2.0 is different from broadcast propaganda.

I wonder if they would delete anything that does not fit in with their world view?

Welllll....my eyesight ain't what it used to be. |huh

I noticed their blog also has 0 comments on all displayed posts. I tried leaving a (tame) comment and it's now awaiting moderation... can't wait to see if they will display it.

Ehm...
Isn't there a HUGE gap equalled to outer space between science and psychology?

Judith Reisman better works out an answer on this one.

Psychology is a sub-field of science, there is no huge gap. The thread you are referring to says that Reisman believes that porn causes physiological effects.

Quite a claim from a "Dr." who received her PhD in communications.

Fucking whiners
why dont they purchase a porn blocker

|angry|Right! No training in physcology, or chemistry. She just coined the phrase 'erototoxins' that the RR now calls scientific evidence.|bullshit||catfight|

Sex causes physiological effects, because that's what it's supposed to do.|headbang| If sex didn't feel good, the species probably won't survive. If we exercise patience, maybe the RR will become extinct from lack of sex!|goodidea

Did you know that if you are male, over 40 and not in a regular sexual relationship, you should masturbate at least 3 times a week or risk serious prostrate cancer? Surely we should be suing these people for limiting our availability of visual masturbatory aids, and thus increasing our risk of cancer? :D

This kind of threat has been going on for years. Problem is when the first complaints came in there wasn't enough longitudinal evidence that porn increased hostilities, damage etc.. Now it's well over ten years later, much more and there's tons of data on what porn can be responsible for and not.

The negatives to their arguments aren't necessarily Constitutional rights, but civil rights. That's far too complex an issue to detail here.

The strength of their movement will be in the criminal activity of adult webmasters and related businesses toward the public and pornmeisters toward pornmeisters. In the past few years as more junkies and degenerate gamblers started emerging as pornmeisters they started attacking one another. Libel and slander and theft. Industry corroding from the inside allows even the smallest attack from the outside to bring the industry to a crawl. If I ever chose to go against the adult industry I could drop so much heat you wouldn't be able to post a picture of your girlfriend in a pair of Dr. Dentons.

If this industry is going to survive it has to police itself so stringently as to not allow for mistakes. However, that's impossible to do because any one guy with a good looking girlfriend can start a new branch of this industry.

From now on this industry is going to have to deal with the more shit it starts the more shit it has to scrape off it's shoes.

Aaah Boone ;) One of the ways this industry, as all industries police themselves is through law. If you are libeled (as a for instance) and that costs you money and the guilty party refuses to aid in reversing the effects of their libel on your income, why wouldn't you sue? It's everyone's right outside the biz to do so, why would we inside the biz exclude ourselves from legal recourse?

I find your opinion to be a little confusing coming from a highly regarded legal expert cartoonist ;)

Please do explain. I've been under the impression that civil rights refers to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class. The last time I checked adult webmasters were not considered a protected class.

Sheep I don't mean to be confusing but if I give out too much, the enemy will use it against you and the others.

Let's just say libel and adult don't always go so well. There are however alternatives. I've had to drop the hammer on a half dozen or more adult webmasters with the libel shit. What happens is that while under investigation it's always found out they're also dealing dope or some other criminal shit so you have to take a backseat to the authorities who can monitor them for years collecting evidence, watching the boards they troll, inspecting owners, associates etc. If you get libeled by some asshat retard and crash him in court you fuck up the investigation.

Noble that's the general impression but it's more complex than just that. If I give out too much the enemy can use that against you. Just wait til that bubble bursts and watch the action. It can be a tool that blanket protects a whole lot more than pornmeisters.

No I'm not a legal expert, I'm often called in as a specialist on certain matters. I did however study law extensively and more which I can't go into at present.

Anyone can become a consultant to legal if you're a pro at some area or two. That goes from being a top chef to a mechanic to being an expert on baseball cards. It all depends on how frequent your skills are needed in a case or investigation and what legal institutions and offices you're associated with. In my case I grew up around lawyers, lawyers in the family, friends, it just doesn't end.

Do you have any authoritative case law that would support this top secret legal defense? If so, please let me know in a pm.

Assuming you are making an equal protection claim the supreme court has set out three tiers of scrutiny : suspect, quasi-suspect, and de-minimus. Under the the most liberal class, de-minimus - I'd say it would be a Hail Mary legal strategy. The Supreme Court is way to conservative for that and Federal judges are loathe to issue rulings that may be overruled by a higher court.

Secondly, I don't see how this would help fight a private group as mentioned in the OP. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. Equal protection means the government can't make laws that discriminate if you fall into a protected class. A few exceptions have been made for the right to travel i.e. hotels, lodging, etc. But that is when dealing with strict scrutiny. So maybe for 2257, but see Hail Mary above.

I'd assume the group that is planning on attacking us would use some form of obscenity challenge in state court. I'd think the best legal defense in this type of case would be to attack the "community standards" prong of the Miller Test by showing them your log files. Everyone on the Internet looks at porn.

I'll take my legal advice from a lawyer. Hell, why not? I'm sure they're more convincing in front of judges than cartoonists or smut peddlers |huh

Newsflash: Lots of lawyers ARE smut peddlers and cartoonists.

I'll tell ya what, when the shit hits the fan and us cartoonists are the only one's standing ( along with story only sites ) you'll see what I mean.

Ahh, but you won't be the only ones standing. Those of us who are not American will still be here. We will have sites with cartoons and stories, AND photos and videos. Since many non-American webmasters use American hosts, they will go too. Those of us left with an English language porn site on a European server stand to make a fortune!

So where to I go to vote Bush in for a THIRD term? |devil|

Toons and stories are not legal everywhere either!|shocking|

Don't be stepping off a plane in the wrong country unless you research it first.