Forums » Off-Topic
Are boobs considered a primary sexual organ?
No, not to my knowledge. Primary sexual organs would be penis and vagina, respectively.
hmmm talk about off topic
So I can say boobs aren't porn? Hooray!
If you have boob questions, ask Janet Jackson... if you have vagina questions, ask Lindsay Lohan.
EDIT: Also, people getting into legal arguments with Cannibal Hannibal == lol.
EDIT: Also, people getting into legal arguments with Cannibal Hannibal == lol.
No, you can't, since it depends on the context in which boobs are used, PC. At least not over here.
the law dictates what you may or may not do with pornography. What is pornography and what is not is not clearly stated. Hopefully you see that you do not necessarily need to know what constitutes a crime to perceive the consequences of it.
E.g. I do not know *exactly* how high the tolerance on the speed limit is over here, but I know *exactly* that I have to expect a fine, or harsher repercussions, if I violate the speed limit.
Hopefully you see that it's meaningless to say you know exactly what will happen if you do X, if you can't know ahead of time what the Hell X is. The great thing about a speed limit is that I have a speedometer, so I can know if I'm in danger of breaking the law.
What you're saying the law is, in the land of Swiss Miss, is similar to "Anyone caught speeding, by going too fast, will be fined exactly $500 and one testicle." Unfettered discretion allows, theoretically, for anything to be considered "too fast." And ex ante, a rational actor hoping to conform his conduct to both his desires and the law will have no idea what to do; only after he's acted at his own peril and the State has decided if it was Wrong and then punished him for it, will he know. Jeremy Bentham called this approach "dog law"; perhaps you see why.
But, in all honesty, the Swizzes are in good company: SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart famously said of porn, "I know it when I see it." And since that's more or less what our case law says on the matter, we've given up trying to ban any material on obscenity grounds (technically there's still a doctrine allowing a law against obscenity as such, but in reality that's never used). We do still ban some depictions, of course, but that's always justified on grounds of protecting those involved (no kiddie porn allowed, in so far as it actually involves kiddies--however, just because the title says the actress is 15, she looks 15, and the perverts watching it honestly believe she's 15... if she's actually 18 and the fine print says so, it's legal).
Also, people getting into legal arguments with Cannibal Hannibal == lol. Awww, come on Cunjo, this is such a nice mid-morning break from document review and privilege logs :P
E.g. I do not know *exactly* how high the tolerance on the speed limit is over here, but I know *exactly* that I have to expect a fine, or harsher repercussions, if I violate the speed limit.
Hopefully you see that it's meaningless to say you know exactly what will happen if you do X, if you can't know ahead of time what the Hell X is. The great thing about a speed limit is that I have a speedometer, so I can know if I'm in danger of breaking the law.
What you're saying the law is, in the land of Swiss Miss, is similar to "Anyone caught speeding, by going too fast, will be fined exactly $500 and one testicle." Unfettered discretion allows, theoretically, for anything to be considered "too fast." And ex ante, a rational actor hoping to conform his conduct to both his desires and the law will have no idea what to do; only after he's acted at his own peril and the State has decided if it was Wrong and then punished him for it, will he know. Jeremy Bentham called this approach "dog law"; perhaps you see why.
But, in all honesty, the Swizzes are in good company: SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart famously said of porn, "I know it when I see it." And since that's more or less what our case law says on the matter, we've given up trying to ban any material on obscenity grounds (technically there's still a doctrine allowing a law against obscenity as such, but in reality that's never used). We do still ban some depictions, of course, but that's always justified on grounds of protecting those involved (no kiddie porn allowed, in so far as it actually involves kiddies--however, just because the title says the actress is 15, she looks 15, and the perverts watching it honestly believe she's 15... if she's actually 18 and the fine print says so, it's legal).
Also, people getting into legal arguments with Cannibal Hannibal == lol. Awww, come on Cunjo, this is such a nice mid-morning break from document review and privilege logs :P
Granted, speeding was a bad example. It illustrated what I meant, though, I would say; my main idea was that ignorance of the law does not excuse. Also, I may know I am in *danger* of breaking the law, but it is possible I do not know *exactly* if I have already transgressed or not. I might have been distracted by a dangerous manoeuver of another driver, and have shortly exceeded speed limit including tolerance. That does not mean that I may do so (even though the circumstances might come into account if I were to appeal the decision).
But it's interesting that the state you practice law in (or is that valid for the entire US?) has a practice not entirely unlike Switzerland's, concerning pornography.
But it's interesting that the state you practice law in (or is that valid for the entire US?) has a practice not entirely unlike Switzerland's, concerning pornography.
Anything relating to free speech is applicable to the whole US (state laws regulating free speech must conform to First Amendment doctrine, as espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court).
Ignorance of the law? The COURT purporting to apply the law ADMITS that IT is ignorant of what the law is! Ignorance of the law because you didn't look (in a book or at the sign) is no defense; ignorance of the law because nobody can define it is quite another matter.
And again, in my hypothetical of "you shall not drive too fast," you'll know you're "in danger" of breaking the law anytime you're moving. And while your gut tells you that the faster you move the more likely you are to be busted, logically that's not necessarily the case. Hence, you'll be worried about violating the law, but won't know what to worry about beyond acting *at all, in any way* until someone twhaps you with a newspaper and says BAD DOG!
Such is no way to run a legal system. Hence, while the doctrinal test in the US ("I know it when I see it") isn't materially different from that used in the land of singing hot chocolate, we actually gave up *ever* prosecuting anyone, much less convicting them, for obscenity. Which is a perfectly just response to not being able to even articulate a common determinative norm for producing an outcome in any given case.
Ignorance of the law? The COURT purporting to apply the law ADMITS that IT is ignorant of what the law is! Ignorance of the law because you didn't look (in a book or at the sign) is no defense; ignorance of the law because nobody can define it is quite another matter.
And again, in my hypothetical of "you shall not drive too fast," you'll know you're "in danger" of breaking the law anytime you're moving. And while your gut tells you that the faster you move the more likely you are to be busted, logically that's not necessarily the case. Hence, you'll be worried about violating the law, but won't know what to worry about beyond acting *at all, in any way* until someone twhaps you with a newspaper and says BAD DOG!
Such is no way to run a legal system. Hence, while the doctrinal test in the US ("I know it when I see it") isn't materially different from that used in the land of singing hot chocolate, we actually gave up *ever* prosecuting anyone, much less convicting them, for obscenity. Which is a perfectly just response to not being able to even articulate a common determinative norm for producing an outcome in any given case.
Ah, it seems I expressed myself poorly. I am not acquainted with what the cases' outcomes relating to pornography are, but that does not mean that there are no definitions for it, just that *I* do not know them. Usually, when there are existing rulings of courts (term?), they become the guiding rail, so to speak, in absence of a law for the case in question.
But I'm really nowhere near familiar ground anymore, I only had lectures relating to ownership, contracts, licensing, company stuff and such. Plus, I am trying to become an engineer, not a lawyer, so you'll have to forgive my inaccuracies.
But I'm really nowhere near familiar ground anymore, I only had lectures relating to ownership, contracts, licensing, company stuff and such. Plus, I am trying to become an engineer, not a lawyer, so you'll have to forgive my inaccuracies.