Oni Press sued for obscenity over 8 year old autobiographical graphic novel

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,518
4,577
118
Country
United States

Aside from "lmao, cancel culture", my big takeaway is how Virginia's artifactal obscenity law takes into account *popularity* as it's second point
And this month, the retired Petersburg-area Judge Pamela Baskervill found there was "probable cause" for the obscenity claims, which allows the books' authors and publishers to defend the work within 21 days.The judgement would depend on the following; 1. The artistic, literary, medical, scientific, cultural and educational values, if any, of the book considered as a whole; 2. The degree of public acceptance of the book, or books of similar character, within the county or city in which the proceeding is brought; 3. The intent of the author and publisher of the book; 4. The reputation of the author and publisher; 5. The advertising, promotion, and other circumstances relating to the sale of the book; 6. The nature of classes of persons, including scholars, scientists, and physicians, for whom the book may not have prurient appeal, and who may be subject to exception pursuant to subsection G.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 31, 2015
1,946
668
118
Should be open and shut because:
1. The work is not obscene.
2. The suit is defective because it's seeking to establish that the work is too obscene for minors, which is not a standard that can be established under the law currently in place.

But this is America so you can't rule anything out.
Also love that the First Amendment protects hate speech but not obscene material.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
13,167
2,170
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Should be open and shut because:
1. The work is not obscene.
2. The suit is defective because it's seeking to establish that the work is too obscene for minors, which is not a standard that can be established under the law currently in place.

But this is America so you can't rule anything out.
Also love that the First Amendment protects hate speech but not obscene material.
The first amendment should really exercise its second amendment more since we seem to let that one do whatever it wants.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
6,010
1,080
118
Country
USA
I'd hope they lose.


Under 1st A, very easy to beat. You can say it has it's uses because the colors are pretty.

I think it was Dershowitz that argued "Deep Throat" had uses taking it out of the realm of the obscene as the music sound track was very entertaining.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,104
685
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
I mean, saying that something's only use is to masturbate to it, just because something can theoretically be masturbated to, would render as obscene basically every piece of media with a girl in a swimsuit or something.

I'm more interested in the thinking behind all those officials who decided they could only fap to that GN.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,034
3,202
118
Australia
I'd hope they lose.


Under 1st A, very easy to beat. You can say it has it's uses because the colors are pretty.

I think it was Dershowitz that argued "Deep Throat" had uses taking it out of the realm of the obscene as the music sound track was very entertaining.
I remember a legal drama, years ago now, had their lawyer character bring in Wes Craven (playing himself) to testify that their defendant was in fact NOT soliciting a prostitute but instead hiring her to make porn by virtue of the presence of a camera in the room, and by arranging the pillows a certain way qualifying as shot composition. Like a fictional example but it was an interesting look at what delineated illegitimate from legitimate enterprise.
 
Last edited: