What’s Obscene?

By fitsnews • on June 11, 2008

CERTAINLY NOT VERONICA CORNINGSTONE GOING BRALESS

FITSNews - June 11, 2008 - Since a freshly-vanquished State Senator recently referred to our little website as “pornographic” (on hundreds of television advertisements, no less) we figured it was high time we addressed what is - and what isn’t - “pornographic” around here.

Oh, and with the recent barrage of political-related posts, we also figured many of our loyal fans were itching for some visual relief, which we hope the above nipple … err, picture … of Veronica Corningstone provides. Ahh, Veronica … we missed you last night in the Lowcountry, baby! And by the way, Sic Willie is still telling his harem that you didn’t really make him stay on “his side of the bed” …

Anyway, “pornographic” is something you have to pay for, people. It’s purchasable images of sex, typically moving images that stream at several thousand kilobytes a second, and sometimes involve midgets (editor’s note: don’t ask ). “Pornographic” is not a couple of semi-nude pictures of Lindsay Lohan, which is the extent of our PG-13 activities here at FITSNews. Obviously, that’s a difficult concept to grasp in a state like South Carolina (where anything other than “married missionary with the lights off” is expressly prohibited), but that’s the way it is.

Plus, bras are friggin’ uncomfortable for those of you who’ve never had to cart your humps around all day … and the fact that we want to celebrate our sisters releasing their heavy burdens is by no means “porn,” its women’s liberation, baby. Lighten (and enlighten) thyselves, yo!

UPDATE - Oh yeah, when the judges in this country overseeing obscenity cases are also partaking of a little porn themselves, forgive us for being a little pessimistic of the system’s ability to make a fair and impartial assessment.

Related Entries

Comments

By q. on June 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Paid for? Y’all must still be hitting the good stuff:

pornography – noun. obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Heck, based on the criteria of 1) obscenity, and 2) having no artistic merit, a picture of Will Folks alone could probably be categorized as pornographic, although that would definitely have to be the free kind. There’s certainly nothing artistic about a drughead, woman-abusing redneck writing blogs about his man crush on Tom Davis and Tim Scott.

~Quintus

By fitsnews on June 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Q-

We’re truly sorry your lady-crush got her ass handed to her, but feel free to keep taking it out on Sic Willie.

-FITSNews

By Prurient perv precedent on June 11th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Last time I checked, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t mention in its definition of pornography or obscenity that either was something you had to pay for. And please, don’t hand me that PG-13 bull. This website has proudly displayed WAY MORE than “a couple of semi-nude photos of Lindsay Lohan.” This site has proudly displayed fully naked women whose genitals are covered by electronic devices; pillow-fighting playboy bunnies; and countless to the point of disturbing to the decent, young girls kissing each other. It has also had numerous “T&A” photos and links called “not safe for work” (NSFW). Why is PG-13 not safe for work? Then, this site has in detail discussed masturbating to these photos and the various women in them. Wow, I’m sure your fiancé is thrilled to know your habits, and is particularly proud that we all know them too!

No doubt many of these links lead to all the pay for porn sites to which SicK refers. Those that are mostly owned by Larry Flynt and the like, and certainly meet the definition of pornography, which is basically set forth below.

[I]n 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity - the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:

“(a) whether the ‘average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

Further,
This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national. This change swung the pendulum back toward a more conservative definition of “obscenity” by local, some times rural communities.

As many had complained that these rulings were so vague that they were impossible to comply by those trying to obey the law, the Court set forth examples of what was “hard core”, or that which the Court considered obscene and illegal. The Court’s list of illegal acts was as follows:

“(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.”

By the way, the court has defined a prurient interest as one that is a shameful morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and that materials appealing to a prurient interest are designed to excite lustful or lascivious thoughts. I believe Findlaw is a bit misleading in its explanation of the relevant cases. The source cited below discusses a case in which the materials were deemed obscene because they did not appeal to “normal lust . . . but primarily materials disseminated to a deviant sexual group.”

In the case Findlaw refers to, a 1966 case, the Court merely concluded that because the materials involved did appeal to a deviant sexual group, that such materials met the Roth test, which was the test prior to Miller. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966). The Mishkin case did not hold that the material had to be appeal to a deviant group; it simply said that because it did appeal to a deviant group it qualified as obscene material, as pornography. Likewise, Miller does not have a “deviant” requirement. It merely requires the material appeals to a prurient interest and meets the other criteria set forth above.

You’re not the first to have to defend your sexually-oriented “speech.” Don’t you think all those perverts who own those sites you endorse and to which you provide links, have had to defend themselves against decent people?
So next time you want to protect your prurient interests, just check-out the perv precedent!
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on June 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

~Quintus makes some good points, but sic(k) willie can’t afford the “good stuff.” And, he missed one significant point. sic(k) willie’s “man crush” is driven by money and the blind hope someday one of those guys will forgive his CDV sins and give him another chance.

Fat chance.