Student Suspended For Sexual Harrassment - Wearing A Costume To Another School's Prom

[The ClayTaurus]

You know, that might not be a bad idea. Only Mormons get into heaven you know.

I thought it was 144,000 Jehova's Witnesses...

 

[insein]

I thought it was 144,000 Jehova's Witnesses...

Nope, mormons. Dont you watch South Park?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Nope, mormons. Dont you watch South Park?

Fuck, is that where we're getting religious enlightenment these days? I've been on the wrong channel.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I guess hustler, penthouse, playpen, etc are all illegal too. I suppose that billion dollar a year industry in california is illegal. Why then do XXX shops get zoning rights? Why are strip clubs allowed to exist? According to SE, its all illegal and they should all be jailed. Perhaps his statement is alittle misleading? Its Utah. Thats what that state wants, then thats fine. I won't live in Utah. If the state your in allows porn, then you should move to Utah where its banned, SE.

Utah's laws are not any stricter than other states. Most obscenity and pornography laws are very similar. They are based on the Supreme Court case Miller v. California. Most states have laws prohibiting the distribution of pornography. To view the laws in other states, go to www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc, and then click on the button entitled “Federal and State Obscenity Statutes.” The distribution laws are applied differently around the country because the law is based on a community standard.

In 1973, the Supreme Court did clarify the definition of pornography/obscenity. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the court defined it by setting up the following three-part test:

1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards find that the material:
when taken as a whole,
appeals to a prurient interest in sex (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, degrading, unhealthy, morbid interest)?

2. Would the average person find the material depicts or describes:
sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, lewd exhibition of the genitals, excretory functions, sadism, and masochism)
in a patently offensive way?

AND

3. Would a reasonable person find the material:
as a whole,
lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?


http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/obscenpornlaws.htm#4

I'm not sure how Oregon is getting around number 2 if they are allowing ultimate sex acts but then I guess a show is not considered "distributing". Let's face it. The porn industry uses any legal technicality they can to get around the intent of the law and they have slowly made inroads into into "community standards" because most people are not paying attention. And with the ACLU screaming "freedom of speech" all the time, people get confused.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Utah's laws are not any stricter than other states. Most obscenity and pornography laws are very similar. They are based on the Supreme Court case Miller v. California. Most states have laws prohibiting the distribution of pornography. To view the laws in other states, go to www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc, and then click on the button entitled “Federal and State Obscenity Statutes.” The distribution laws are applied differently around the country because the law is based on a community standard.

In 1973, the Supreme Court did clarify the definition of pornography/obscenity. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the court defined it by setting up the following three-part test:

1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards find that the material:
when taken as a whole,
appeals to a prurient interest in sex (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, degrading, unhealthy, morbid interest)?

2. Would the average person find the material depicts or describes:
sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, lewd exhibition of the genitals, excretory functions, sadism, and masochism)
in a patently offensive way?

AND

3. Would a reasonable person find the material:
as a whole,
lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?


http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/obscenpornlaws.htm#4

I'm not sure how Oregon is getting around number 2 if they are allowing ultimate sex acts but then I guess a show is not considered "distributing". Let's face it. The porn industry uses any legal technicality they can to get around the intent of the law and they have slowly made inroads into into "community standards" because most people are not paying attention. And with the ACLU screaming "freedom of speech" all the time, people get confused.

But is Playboy illegal?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But is Playboy illegal?

Some think it is. It certainly meets the standard for porn in many peoples eyes. There are many communities that do not want the magazine to be allowed in their local libraries. Why should citizens pay for public smut? Not to mention letting their kids get access to it in a library.

Others must think it passes the court's test for porn or is not considered to be "hard porn" and so want to allow it. Evidently not enough people are complaining about it to make it an issue and declare it illegal and so it appears to be legal as "community standards" are slack.

It has been hard enough to address the child porn issue. At least some progress is being seen in that area. Maybe some day Playboy, etc. will be banned due to their depiction of children in sexual contexts.

 

[GotZoom]

Some think it is. It certainly meets the standard for porn in many peoples eyes. There are many communities that do not want the magazine to be allowed in their local libraries. Why should citizens pay for public smut? Not to mention letting their kids get access to it in a library.

Others must think it passes the court's test for porn or is not considered to be "hard porn" and so want to allow it. Evidently not enough people are complaining about it to make it an issue and declare it illegal and so it appears to be legal as "community standards" are slack.

It has been hard enough to address the child porn issue. At least some progress is being seen in that area. Maybe some day Playboy, etc. will be banned due to their depiction of children in sexual contexts.

Playboy has kiddie porn in it?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Some think it is. It certainly meets the standard for porn in many peoples eyes. There are many communities that do not want the magazine to be allowed in their local libraries. Why should citizens pay for public smut? Not to mention letting their kids get access to it in a library.

Others must think it passes the court's test for porn or is not considered to be "hard porn" and so want to allow it. Evidently not enough people are complaining about it to make it an issue and declare it illegal and so it appears to be legal as "community standards" are slack.

It has been hard enough to address the child porn issue. At least some progress is being seen in that area. Maybe some day Playboy, etc. will be banned due to their depiction of children in sexual contexts.

Wow.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Playboy has kiddie porn in it?

Please refer to the quote in post #126.

 

[GotZoom]

Please refer to the quote in post #126.

I have seen a few Playboy magazines in my life.

I guess I missed the ones with the kids in them.

 

[MissileMan]

I have seen a few Playboy magazines in my life.

I guess I missed the ones with the kids in them.

I'm with you...we're supposed to believe that these mainstream magazines were allowed to portray child pornography. What a pile of bullshit! The tactic of exaggeration is reserved for those who have no "real" evidence or argument.

 

[insein]

Some think it is. It certainly meets the standard for porn in many peoples eyes. There are many communities that do not want the magazine to be allowed in their local libraries. Why should citizens pay for public smut? Not to mention letting their kids get access to it in a library.

Others must think it passes the court's test for porn or is not considered to be "hard porn" and so want to allow it. Evidently not enough people are complaining about it to make it an issue and declare it illegal and so it appears to be legal as "community standards" are slack.

It has been hard enough to address the child porn issue. At least some progress is being seen in that area. Maybe some day Playboy, etc. will be banned due to their depiction of children in sexual contexts.

I guess someone should tell that to the stock holders that keep making money off of playboy alone. I mean if they own stock in an illegal product, then they are going to jail. All 223,000 of them. My god. then add that to Playboy's 4 million sales a year and your talking about a very crowded jail just from playboy sunscribers. Then lets throw all the people who ever made porn, bought porn, looked at porn or caught a glimpse of porn on a cable channel at 3 in the morning on a saturday into jail as well. I guess that leaves us with a total of 37 people left in the country who arent criminals. Have fun running things while the rest of us are in jail.

You my friend want to throw good honest people into jail for something that you find immoral. Something that has no harm to you, to your kids or to society as a whole and yet you want to make them into criminals. Its the same argument for drug users. "Well they smoked marijuana and that can lead to harder drugs and really ruin their lives. Lets send them to jail for their own good." Great idea genious. Its idiots like you that we have such an overcrowded jail system to begin with. You keep wanting to make laws that restrict more freedoms on what people can do. Thus you make innocent people into criminals. Why? because they intentionally created a harm to society? No because they broke a law created by a politician to either appease a special interest group that gives them money or to directly make money off of the law itself. (seatbelts, DUI, speeding)

BOTTOMLINE, you don't like something, you dont have to watch it, you dont have to buy it, you don't have to listen to it, you dont even have to deal with it EVER. But dont tell me or anyone else that they have to stop what they are doing simply because you want to have a powertrip and tell people to live by your standards and morals. Thats totalitarianism and that my friend is NOT AMERICA. The only thing in this country as dangerous as the Socialist, commie liberals is the Hollier than Thou, Religious nutjobs. They both represent a VERY small and idiotic minority of people but have very large mouths.

 

[GotZoom]

Maybe some day Playboy, etc. will be banned due to their depiction of children in sexual contexts.

I asked about this and you quoted a report.

I'm curious. Have you ever seen child porn in Playboy? I'm not defending Playboy.

I seriously am one of those who enjoy the articles more than the pictures.

I am more hands on than visual. Why look? I want to touch!

If their definition of Child porn is 18 year olds, then I will understand where they are coming from; don't agree..but if in their minds, an 18 year old is a child, then so be it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I guess someone should tell that to the stock holders that keep making money off of playboy alone. I mean if they own stock in an illegal product, then they are going to jail. All 223,000 of them. My god. then add that to Playboy's 4 million sales a year and your talking about a very crowded jail just from playboy sunscribers. Then lets throw all the people who ever made porn, bought porn, looked at porn or caught a glimpse of porn on a cable channel at 3 in the morning on a saturday into jail as well. I guess that leaves us with a total of 37 people left in the country who arent criminals. Have fun running things while the rest of us are in jail.

You my friend want to throw good honest people into jail for something that you find immoral. Something that has no harm to you, to your kids or to society as a whole and yet you want to make them into criminals. Its the same argument for drug users. "Well they smoked marijuana and that can lead to harder drugs and really ruin their lives. Lets send them to jail for their own good." Great idea genious. Its idiots like you that we have such an overcrowded jail system to begin with. You keep wanting to make laws that restrict more freedoms on what people can do. Thus you make innocent people into criminals. Why? because they intentionally created a harm to society? No because they broke a law created by a politician to either appease a special interest group that gives them money or to directly make money off of the law itself. (seatbelts, DUI, speeding)

BOTTOMLINE, you don't like something, you dont have to watch it, you dont have to buy it, you don't have to listen to it, you dont even have to deal with it EVER. But dont tell me or anyone else that they have to stop what they are doing simply because you want to have a powertrip and tell people to live by your standards and morals. Thats totalitarianism and that my friend is NOT AMERICA. The only thing in this country as dangerous as the Socialist, commie liberals is the Hollier than Thou, Religious nutjobs. They both represent a VERY small and idiotic minority of people but have very large mouths.

Maybe I mistunderstood you, but you don't think DUI's are legitimate?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I asked about this and you quoted a report.

I'm curious. Have you ever seen child porn in Playboy? I'm not defending Playboy.

I seriously am one of those who enjoy the articles more than the pictures.

I am more hands on than visual. Why look? I want to touch!

If their definition of Child porn is 18 year olds, then I will understand where they are coming from; don't agree..but if in their minds, an 18 year old is a child, then so be it.

Shhh James Dobson told him it was true...

 

[insein]

Maybe I mistunderstood you, but you don't think DUI's are legitimate?

DUI's IMO are ridiculous. If a person hasnt crashed or injured another person, what have they done then? Its like the minority Report. We think that you are going to commit a murder so we are putting you in jail right now for their own and your own good. DUI places you in jail for up to 2 years, gives you a thousand dollar fine, takes away your driver's license when you get out of jail so you can't go anywhere and is a black mark on your record for the rest of your life preventing you from getting a legitimate job etc. That to me is excessive punishment for someone that didnt harm anyone else.

Make the legal limit at an actual amount of alcohol that can intoxicate. Most states, especially here in PA, have the legal limit so low that a shot of nyquil puts you over the legal limit. I think if an officer sees someone swerving and out of control, they pull them over. If they are then drunk over that actual limit, hold them jail till they sober up, give them a fine and send them on their way.

Now if the person kills another in a car accident, then thats different. Try them for manslaughter or murder in the 2nd degree and go about it that way. I don't like "preventative" laws because they end up ruining more lives then they save.

 

[GotZoom]

DUI's IMO are ridiculous. If a person hasnt crashed or injured another person, what have they done then? Its like the minority Report. We think that you are going to commit a murder so we are putting you in jail right now for their own and your own good. DUI places you in jail for up to 2 years, gives you a thousand dollar fine, takes away your driver's license when you get out of jail so you can't go anywhere and is a black mark on your record for the rest of your life preventing you from getting a legitimate job etc. That to me is excessive punishment for someone that didnt harm anyone else.

Now if the person kills another in a car accident, then thats different. Try them for manslaughter or murder in the 2nd degree and go about it that way. I don't like "preventative" laws because they end up ruining more lives then they save.

Should a child molester be allowed to live next to an elementary school?

Isn't that preventitive?

 

[no1tovote4]

Should a child molester be allowed to live next to an elementary school?

Isn't that preventitive?

A convicted child molester should never be allowed to walk free in society. This is a sign of insanity, the recidivism rate of molesters is simply too high to think that we should ever allow anybody convicted of this crime out of prison.

However not allowing them to live next to a school is after the fact of conviction, it is not solely preventative but a continuation of punishment.

 

[insein]

Should a child molester be allowed to live next to an elementary school?

Isn't that preventitive?

It should be one or the other with child molestors. EIther we put them in jail for the rest of their lives (or kill em) or let them live their life as a rehabilitated person. We can't keep punishing a person after they've gone to jail and paid their debt to society. Change the laws on how long to punish them or keep them the way they are and live the people alone. If they commit a crime again, then send em back to jail. Thats how a criminal system works. How can we keep punishing people after theyve done their time?

 

[GotZoom]

A convicted child molester should never be allowed to walk free in society. This is a sign of insanity, the recidivism rate of molesters is simply too high to think that we should ever allow anybody convicted of this crime out of prison.

However not allowing them to live next to a school is after the fact of conviction, it is not solely preventative but a continuation of punishment.

I agree 100%.

In using insein's argument (which is why I asked the question), if the molester has paid his debt to society, the living next to a school is preventative.