Thanks for showing us such excellent examples of non-pornography. We feel much better now.

Fat chance.

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

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

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

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

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