http://www.techdirt.com/ Easily digestible tech news.... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c790 Mon, 20 May 2013 23:10:05 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c790 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c774 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:47:24 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c774 Causing actual harm to children is, in most people's view, evil. Writing about causing harm to children is a lot more dubious. You might be on slightly less shaky legal ground if you had evidence that fiction incited people to immediately molest children. I have not seen such evidence.

There are any number of studies out there that show that there are people who have these urges but do no act on them for various reasons. Getting in contact with like minded people, or getting what amounts to instructional stories from people may push them to actual acts. You can look around Google, I am sure you will find interesting reading to expand you mind on this horrible tendency that exists in some.

videotaping a fifteen-year old having sex is illegal, because it's considered to be exploiting and harming the child. Writing about a fifteen-year old having sex does not harm the child, and is not illegal. When the court prosecutes someone for molesting a child, they are not required to tailor the punishment based upon the child's age.

Part of this is a question of black and white law, the day you turn 18 you are old enough to get naked on camera and die for your country, but not drink. Arbitrary settings which we accept as law for various reasons. I could wish that some of the pirates here were so virtuous in respecting the law! In some places (such as Canada) writing about underage sex for titilation / pleasure was made illegal. In the US, there has been great protection for the written word, but since some choose to push the very limits, there is always someone who will step over.

I'm not sure where to even start on this one. "Skirting the law by hiding in the first amendment" is equivalent to "obeying the law". People do legal things on the internet when they want to.

It's actually the idea that since someone erotica has been deemed legal in certain ways, that these people decided to push it to the nth degree and go all out pedophile in the nastiest way possible.

Let's look at it a different way. Straight porn videos are for all intents and purposes legal now. Even a recent past AG was quoted as saying that some porn does garner 1st amendment protection as legal and protected speech. Yet, on the other hand, guys like Paul Little have gone to jail for obscenity - mostly because he pushed the limits and went beyond the public's comfort zone. Obscenity isn't a black and white issue, and it's a poor judgement system legally, but it is what it is. I doubt there are very many people here on Techdirt who would enjoy extreme pedophile fiction, and most would find it disgusting and degrading. That is pretty much the standard for finding something obscene.

Speaking as someone who feels no particular urge to molest children, I also feel no particular urge to read a lot of other people's fantasies about molesting children. I think that you're confusing cause and effect, here.

You and I are normal people and don't have these urges. However, some people do. Most of them apparently never act on the urges, instead getting their satisfaction with the Sears catalog or whatever. Most people who collect CP (in all it's forms) have not acted on their urges before obtaining the material, but some will after. They can learn from the stories of others ways to achieve those goals.

If you don't think people follow example, consider how many people have been killed lying down on the line in the middle of the highway following a certain movie release. These aren't people who "had the urge" to die, but they did it anyway. People learn, good and bad, from example.

yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused

Nobody is prohibiting writing. That is one of the least honest arguments in that case, the typical misdirection of those who seek to obscure their bad acts behind smoke and mirrors and logical dead ends. Some people think that a scud missile launcher makes a nice lawn ornament, but that isn't going to make owning a real one any more legal.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/12190223151/prendas-paul-hansmeier-asks-appeals-court-to-delay-sanctions-appeals-court-says-no-try-again.shtml#c226 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:46:18 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/12190223151/prendas-paul-hansmeier-asks-appeals-court-to-delay-sanctions-appeals-court-says-no-try-again.shtml#c226
You seem to be blatantly misrepresenting what happened in the course of this trial. You're saying they were not given time to make a defence, but they were not being accused of a single thing.

The Judge repeatedly requested the most basic of information, like who was the person behind a signature, who was the owner of a company, etc. And when no one gave him that information, he requested it from people who supposedly could. And when every single claimant and every single legal representative directly involved with this case could not answer a single question, the judge imposed legal sanctions.

Once again, these sanctions were not for committing a crime. They were for obstructing the legal process.

Piracy is irrelevant to this.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml#c637 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:42:39 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml#c637 "Yet, you only hyper-focus on the outliers. What's the matter with a little perspective on things, Mike?"

What perspective is required for a story about four film studios all trying to illegally suppress a film about a website they hate, and which is (probably) critical of their actions? This isn't just just an "outlier", this is an egregious example of copyright abuse as censorship, an act that is the complete antithesis of the stated supposed of copyright, i.e. encouraging creativity.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11200723149/war-journalists-doj-claimed-fox-news-reporter-was-aider-abettor-co-conspirator-with-leaker.shtml#c856 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:28:51 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11200723149/war-journalists-doj-claimed-fox-news-reporter-was-aider-abettor-co-conspirator-with-leaker.shtml#c856 By now it should be abundantly clear that this has little to do with protecting national security, and everything to do with a war on investigative reporting about the federal government.

So anyone, using the title "reporter" can do what they like, without any risk, without any legal come back? If as the FBI is suggesting that this "reporter" was part of the operation, then he is no better than the criminals themselves. Your suggesting here is that one can cloak themselves in their profession and ignore the law, and that is just not acceptable.

Reporters who help to "create" the news rather than report it tend to cross the line.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c767 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:28:20 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c767
The lesser of two evils option does not minimize the evil. You can go and read up on things like escalation and training to understand why you can't just trade one for the other and feel better.

Causing actual harm to children is, in most people's view, evil. Writing about causing harm to children is a lot more dubious. You might be on slightly less shaky legal ground if you had evidence that fiction incited people to immediately molest children. I have not seen such evidence.

Any basic text on sexual urges will tell you that there is a big difference between pre and post pubescent desires. All I am saying is that many of us (except perhaps the geeks around here) had sex before their 18th birthday, but hopefully none before your 10th birthday. There is a really big difference, one that almost anyone can see.

Yes. And videotaping a fifteen-year old having sex is illegal, because it's considered to be exploiting and harming the child. Writing about a fifteen-year old having sex does not harm the child, and is not illegal. When the court prosecutes someone for molesting a child, they are not required to tailor the punishment based upon the child's age.

The bypass is that once they got a ruling saying that the written word is rarely obscene, they all piled in. Real CP is rare as hell on the open internet, but you can find pedophile spank stories all over the place (just search for the author's name in question on Google...). They saw a way to share and communicate with each other about their experiences and fantasies, while skirting the law by hiding in the first amendment.

Honestly, I'm not sure where to even start on this one. "Skirting the law by hiding in the first amendment" is equivalent to "obeying the law". People do legal things on the internet when they want to.

Nice attempt at baiting, but you fail. You really do need to go read up a bit before you toss stuff like that out there. Yes, people can be trained, they go from having a basic urge but not knowing a way to express it into being a well trained soldier who learns from these stories ways to lure children.

Speaking as someone who feels no particular urge to molest children, I also feel no particular urge to read a lot of other people's fantasies about molesting children. I think that you're confusing cause and effect, here. As far as "ways to lure children" go, I suspect that the children in molestation fantasies are not really attracted by the same things as actual children. See also Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: "...there are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as toys, movies, games, video games, candy, money etc. that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused."]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/12190223151/prendas-paul-hansmeier-asks-appeals-court-to-delay-sanctions-appeals-court-says-no-try-again.shtml#c210 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:25:16 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/12190223151/prendas-paul-hansmeier-asks-appeals-court-to-delay-sanctions-appeals-court-says-no-try-again.shtml#c210 So then you just happen to think due process is one sided then? Only for Team Prenda?

What about the people that Prenda sued in this case, they should be treated with same courtesy should they not?

I think that there is real issue in law right now that creates a space where people can hide behind their ISP, and commit illegal acts with impunity. I think that this gets in the way of due process, as it's almost impossible to get proper identification for someone to bring them to court.

Essentially, it's great for the pirates who get to hide out and thumb their nose at the law, but bad for rights holders who are left facing legal stonewalling from ISPs.

Prenda makes it worse with all sort of stupid shit, they are total idiots. They are no better at this point that the Tenenbaums and Thomas on the piracy side, helping to set precedents that will be bad for the supporter of their side.

Prenda's case however does show however that there are serious issues regarding identifying people online, and that it creates both an obstruction of justice and sadly a hole where scammers (such as Prenda appear to be) can exploit for profit. It does neither side any good.

When Judges sanction you and scold you in various rulings and you still fail to follow the courts orders and directives, then you have brought the weight of the law and courts upon yourself, and deservedly so.

I agree. But the judge in this case went above and beyond, calling in people who were not directly party to the case, calling people in from outside of the district, and essentially putting them on trial without the benefits of time to build a defense. At that point, the judge is no better than those he judges harshly, he either abused his power or came incredibly close to the line, and he should count himself lucky not to find himself facing his own issues in the matter.

Due process isn't just for pirates, that's important to remember.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1413 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:24:17 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1413 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1397 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:23:30 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1397 If I were thin-skinned, why would I take three years of abuse with a smile on my face?

Cause you're masochist or a paid shill? Which again only goes to show how much your corporate masters spend on themselves rather than employ someone who's actually skilled in debate.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1381 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:19:04 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1381 I am here to discredit this site--absolutely.

And you fail at this EVERY SINGLE TIME. Tough shit.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1372 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:17:45 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1372 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/16464823123/swedish-prosecutor-claims-registrar-se-domains-being-accomplice-infringement-because-pirate-bay-domain.shtml#c718 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:13:52 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/16464823123/swedish-prosecutor-claims-registrar-se-domains-being-accomplice-infringement-because-pirate-bay-domain.shtml#c718 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml#c613 Mon, 20 May 2013 22:07:01 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml#c613
It's a public service.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml#c36 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:55:57 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml#c36 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml#c597 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:46:26 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml#c597
Filling Users Content Knowledge Entirely Digital - FUCKED.

or Content Universally Needs Trading - CUNT


it's all good.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/16464823123/swedish-prosecutor-claims-registrar-se-domains-being-accomplice-infringement-because-pirate-bay-domain.shtml#c715 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:44:04 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/16464823123/swedish-prosecutor-claims-registrar-se-domains-being-accomplice-infringement-because-pirate-bay-domain.shtml#c715 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c759 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:43:54 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c759
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

District Court ruling goes down in flames.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/06201422976/chicago-blackhawks-fire-reporter-over-silly-old-youtube-videos.shtml#c325 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:37:37 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/06201422976/chicago-blackhawks-fire-reporter-over-silly-old-youtube-videos.shtml#c325 Major automakers concocting horrible advertising around suicide

you keep talking about it. Short term fail perhaps, but long term everyone knows the name of the ocmpany. Most businesses would do anything for this level of exposure, good or bad.

It's actually funny to see bloggers like you played in this manner.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11200723149/war-journalists-doj-claimed-fox-news-reporter-was-aider-abettor-co-conspirator-with-leaker.shtml#c848 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:33:53 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11200723149/war-journalists-doj-claimed-fox-news-reporter-was-aider-abettor-co-conspirator-with-leaker.shtml#c848 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c752 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:29:22 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c752
I'm surprised this whole law wasn't declared unconstitutional. I mean, I understand the desire to ban "anything immoral", but that's so open to interpretation that it seems to be impermissibly vague. I don't like the idea of a law which automatically incorporates "community standards". If you want to make written depictions of child sex illegal, then you should explicitly say so, and not leave people to guess.

I mean, we ordinarily have specific laws against things like arson and murder. We don't just leave it to some generic law that prohibits "indecent acts" with the implication that murder and arson are indecent. Because that would be silly. Yet somehow, it's deemed acceptable here.

This entire CHAPTER of the law has some rather over the top punishments, too. Using an epithet on a postcard can get you 5 years. Because... what, the mailman might get offended?

"interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)"

OK, I just had to laugh at that.

"Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance"

Come on now, get out your thesaurus, I think you missed a few synonyms.]]>