Welcome to my internal dialog.

Pair charged with Porno sales?

I find this slightly disturbing. Two men are charged with selling obscene materials and sending the material from Ohio to Utah. I am not a legal expert (nor do I play one on TV) but, on the surface, this seems extreme. Before we pass judgment, however, let’s do a bit of digging.

In 2005, the DoJ created the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. The goal of this unit is to:

_{“..protect citizens from unlawful exposure to obscene materials. The welfare of America's children and families demands the vigorous enforcement of obscenity statutes, as traffickers in illegal adult obscenity employ advancements in technology and marketing to extend their unlawful and harmful influence.”}

Interestingly enough, right before this comment, the material states:

_{“The Task Force is strongly committed to protecting free speech, as well as prosecuting obscenity crimes. The right of ordinary citizens - and of the press - to speak out and express their views is one of the greatest strengths of our Country, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials and federal law makes it a felony to use the streams of commerce for trafficking in obscenity.”}

So, what specific laws may have been violated? I was able to find the following information via the Utah Attorney General website:

1. Sending obscene material through the mail (18 U.S.C. 1461);
2. Distribution of pornography (76-10-1204 U.C.A.);
3. Mailing material with indecent pictures or words on the wrapper
or envelope (18 U.S.C. 1463); and
4. Continuing to send material after you file a prohibitory order (39 U.S.C. 3008 and 3010).

The First Amendment does not protect obscene material, but what exactly is obscene material? According to the defining court case, Miller v. California (No. 70-73), obscene material can be:

_{2. "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.}

_{3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard}

_{4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard."}

Based on my interpretation of this information, any community (state) has the ability to determine what is considered “obscene”. What is obscene in Utah may be common and excepted in Florida.

By the strictest definition of the law, it sounds like these individuals may be in trouble. I am disturbed by our government saying it has a role in “stopping people from undermining American values”. To me, as an American, I should have the right to live my life as I see it, without government interference, as long as I do not interfere with another individual’s world (life, property, family, rights).

Where am I wrong?

Posted by: salvia at 06:58 PM | Law | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Creative Control

At what point does an artist “sell out”? If an artist creates something (music, painting, what have you) and they are paid for doing what comes natural – or from their soul – are they selling out? From my point of view, no, said artist is simply being true to himself or herself and someone else happens to enjoy their creation for what it is. When a producer tells the artist “this is what’s hot” or “you should target…” and the suggestion is not true to the creation – that is selling out.

When I read articles about artists who decide to not compromise their creation, I think there is hope for the creative process as a whole.....

The latest example is how the Matt and Mike Chapman, the creators of Homestar Runner, reject two TV offers in order to retain the essence of the original idea.

_{“There was a brief flirtation with Comedy Central and Adult Swim," Matt said. "The whole TV thing seemed creepy. They wanted to plug it into their model -- that all comedy was gag-related, not character-driven. They left the door open, but we liked what we were doing and kept doing it online."}

And

_{"What they do works for them, but if we were doing our show there, we’d still have producers telling us what to do, what to change, what to write, etc. We love the control and the immediacy that writing and creating cartoons on the website brings us. As the ideas come, we can do whatever our whim is that week."}

I understand the “sell out” discussion can be taken further, such as pitching product, but that is a talk for a different time and place. My focus was simply on having the ability to remain true to your self.

Congrats, Matt and Mike.




more...

Posted by: salvia at 05:06 PM | Creative | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

It's time...

Welcome!

I've reached a point in my life where I feel the need to write/express myself...  I'm not doing this so much for the "world" to see but as a release for myself, as well as a record of what I am experiencing.

So if you happen to stop on by, I hope you enjoy.  I also hope you gain something from my 'internal dialog'.

Posted by: salvia at 03:43 AM | General | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.