Info regarding federal laws associated with obscene material ( pizzagate )

submitted by Enigmatic_Continuum

Here's a link to a thread discussing the fact that there are federal laws about obscene material, and a Harvard law student is dropping this info on 4chan. Take it for what you will and there is no proof that this person is or has claimed to be Marina Abramovic's niece as the title in v/politics suggests.

https://voat.co/v/politics/2651834

To those who are saying that there are no laws about obscene material and arguing about hard core porn, these are usually consenting adults, so this shouldn't be up for debate on v/Pizzagate .

This is related to Pizzagate because of obscene YouTube material such as Elsagate and Pinkie Pie that are attractive to children, and parents aren't aware of this stuff or choose to ignore the fact their children are being exposed to Satanic/pedo/MK Ultra conditioning.

Here are links to the other two threads I've created on this, but have deleted:

1) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2652414

2) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2651912

Important info from the comments section of the 2nd deleted thread from @Pizzalawyer -

Well I would have to dig deeper on this matter to give a proper answer. But there is this seldom used concept of "private attorney general" where a private citizen can bring a civil action to enforce the law when the public attorney general fails to do so. We rate movies, dont we, for sexual or violent content. Why is there no.enforceable rating for Internet material. Anyone can google Stormy Daniels nude photos and thereby discover a cashe of images that would make Hugh Hefner blush if he were alive.

The statutes cited above seem to.refer to.modes of labeling content that entices children, rather than censoring or prohibiting such content. Its a very sticky issue and ultimately it falls upon parents to monitor computer use, movies, etc. Obscenity is so out of control, it is impossible to enforce the well meaning laws. We cant even keep.up with the pedophile problem which is more harmful..

Interesting to know that Marina has relatives in the USA. Marina does live shows; can she be stopped like lap.dancers in a bar? Perhaps she can be labeled X rated and keep children away. Maybe we need new laws re: SRA though Satanism alone would probably be protected under religious freedom. Sigh.. .its all.too depressing.

Angelis_Solaris

Considering that normal pornography is a progressive illness and ends with pedophilia, it is particularly concerning that our society has such lax attitudes about it.

Angelis_Solaris

To clarify, I think that going forward the number of people who become greater sexual deviants due to pornography will increase as our collective/national situation worsens. There are several paths to pedophilia and one of them is via severe pornography addiction, which in many people is a progressive illness, kind of like cocaine or something like that. Where softcore pornography will no longer release enough dopamine in the target's brain, they may gradually transition to watching hardcore porn, then fetish material, then BDSM and then worse things still. Not because they necessarily normally want to, but because their Limbic Center of the Brain has been compromised by their severe addiction. Apparently, this type of illness is curable -- I've heard of Amino Acid therapy that purports to be able to restore the depleted neurotransmitters in the Target's brain, causing them to go back to regular life with only partial relapse with regular porn. Here are the relevant links to some information regarding curing porn addiction (by Wholehealthrecovery):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EKYJb_4cMJDbpO7jTuDHGpRMqnNN74FS

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CZf2eFvEeGbrPIVEo-aeytwq_bCjEtL-

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DgPZBggYpOG6jI_CCCTUVDF_l_hGHO7h

Pizzalawyer

That's not the real.John D. Podesta, is it?

Enigmatic_Continuum

Not sure yet...

Pizzalawyer

kudos to everyone trying to.understand obscenity laws; Im not sure I understand them myself so I will just speak.in broad generalities. Such laws and court interpretaions can be found in both federal.and state jurisdictions. Interstate commerce by way of mail or computer communication gives the feds the right to impose laws while the states have an inherent right to protect the welfare of its citizens. Sometimes there is both federal and state jurisdiction and one agency may defer to another or alternatively may.embark on a joint operation to.carry out law enforcement.

Miller remains good law but the challenge for law enforcement are the definitions of the applicable standards. What is an offense against community standards can be one thing for Las Vegas and a different thing for Warren, Pennsylvania. And how do you arrive at a community standard where the world wide Internet is involved? There is no local community. Standards also evolve. What was shocking in 1973 is no big deal.in 2018.

And when is a movie or video appealing primarily to purient interests rather than art or education? Hollywood and publishers have been pushing the limits ever since Miller. They will find the most vulgar true life story and then build a movie around it with as much salacious realism that can be packaged into it. Remember the teen magazine with the article promoting anal sex for both boys and girld? Dont be put off by the smell of feces, everyone has some feces in their rectum, its natural. Nary a protest! Except from us. But one can argue that it appealed to purient interests more than education because it completely left out the dangers of anal sex. So you can see the difficulties for a prosecutor.

Fortunately, obscenity laws for children operate within a totally.separate framework which is pretty simple and straight forward. The legal framework is couched in terms of child sex abuse rather than.obscenity. The laws vary slightly .from state to state. Typically the law prohibits any image of a real.child that features the genitalia and prohibits any image in which any part of a childs body comes into contact with the genitalia of another person whether an adult or not. Some states will add beastiality to the mix. But now the bugaboo.is proving it's a real image instead of a photo shopped creation. So who has the best forensic tools to do battle with this defense?

Cops and prosecutors dont have a crystal ball for divining an offense. They rely.on complaints from.victims or concerned citizens and they will have to prioritize the.offenses due to fiscal. and staff constraints and then they will have to go about proving the case.

The new frontier will entail Internet censorship and just how much an open and free society will tolerate restrictions. And that's a topic I'm not prepared to discuss.

JohanneOAlors

Child pornography is illegal throughout the US, which is exactly what those tweets constitute.

Enigmatic_Continuum

Thanks for expanding on this topic.

Pizzalawyer

you are welcome. I dont know how to copy and paste so I cant provide citations or links. We all strayed off point re: Satanism. I dont believe there are any laws b/c we as a society have not yet recognized it as harmful. I need to do some research but I think India's new law providing for capital punishment for raping a child also included references to SRA. I'll get back with you later.

Enigmatic_Continuum

No worries! Thanks.

JohnDavidPodesta

Grounds for a class action Lawsuit against the corporate entity Youtube for their wilful or grossly negligent role in the exploitation of minors.

"Elsagate" is a disturbing phenomenon which was uncovered through the intensive research of members of the public.

We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.

Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offences. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text..

In Miller v. California (1973) - the currently-binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue - the Court ruled materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

Elsagate For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law. http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1532983749398.png

CEOS’s Role The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) remains dedicated to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorney´s Offices throughout the country to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. The use of the Internet to distribute obscenity has blurred traditional notions of jurisdiction. CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus to help coordinate nationwide investigations and initiatives. Given the importance of community standards under the Miller test, however, CEOS recognizes that the full commitment and support of local United States Attorney´s Offices, who best know local community standards, are absolutely essential to the federal obscenity enforcement efforts.

CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON OBSCENITY 18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property 18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes 18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language 18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture 18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television 18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions 18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C).

archive: http://archive.is/36aok open: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/180601986

Enigmatic_Continuum

So, you're here to ensure us that you're taking a direct role in getting this accomplished? Is that correct, John? You're not one of the good guys?

JohnDavidPodesta

That is correct.

Enigmatic_Continuum

OK, then. Please make this public knowledge. Tweet it.

Are_we__sure

Hi, all your posts on this have been very unclear and confusing.

What you seem to be asking is can obscenity law be applied to material like Elsagate or Pinkie Pie?

Is this the crux of the issue? Did I miss anything?

Enigmatic_Continuum

Yeah, that's it. Why is it you and the other shills are the only ones who couldn't see this? The genuine PG investigators identified this immediately.

Are_we_sure

Perhaps because you surrounded your post with extraneous and confusing nonsense.

I don't know what Pinkie Pie is, but the Elsagate/Toy Freaks stuff was not illegal.

Anthony Jeselnik's jokes are not illegal.

No federal prosecutor in the country would try to say that they are.

If you think these are legally obscene as oppossed being obscene in a colloquial sense, please lay out a case with a specific example that violates the Miller test.

Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

JohnDavidPodesta

You're absolutely wrong and I will demonstrate why if I can receive adequate up-votes to post on the main forum.

Oh_Well_ian

you should have picked a better SN if you wanted to be taken seriously as a White Hat

Enigmatic_Continuum

It's nice to see you pandering to the amoral people in society.

Why do we even have movie and videogame ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17)? You've heard of the watershed in relation to TV programming times, right? Why do TV programs have warnings that the program may not be suitable for some viewers?

It's nice to know you have no problem with YouTube funneling obscene materials to children and using keywords to target them to ensure they're being viewed by children.

Are_we_sure

It's nice to see you pandering to the amoral people in society.

Wtf are you talking about?

Why do we even have movie and videogame ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17)? You've heard of the watershed in relation to TV programming times, right? Why do TV programs have warnings that the program may not be suitable for some viewers?

Movie ratings are not laws. They are put out by the MPAA which is an industry group.

https://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/

You keep stating without evidence that YouTube is showing obscene material. You need to back that claim up. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Also whether or not YouTube should have a ratings system is a separate issue from is some video or some tweet legally obscene?

Enigmatic_Continuum

More reading comprehension issues from you...

I didn't say the ratings were laws.

Have you ever heard of the FCC?

The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action . Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech

Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV. That may seem clear enough, but determining what obscene, indecent and profane mean can be difficult, depending on who you talk to.

In the Supreme Court's 1964 landmark case on obscenity and pornography, Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote: "I know it when I see it." That case still influences FCC rules today, and complaints from the public about broadcasting objectionable content drive the enforcement of those rules.

In other words, if you "know it when you see it" and find it objectionable, you can tell the FCC and ask us to check into it.

Deciding what's obscene, indecent or profane

Each type of content has a distinct definition:

Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment. For content to be ruled obscene , it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity.

Profane content includes "grossly offensive" language that is considered a public nuisance.

Factors in determining how FCC rules apply include the specific nature of the content, the time of day it was broadcast and the context in which the broadcast took place.

Broadcasting obscenecontent is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

Looks like YouTube needs to be held liable under these circumstances. Although, we all know that laws and regulations haven't caught up with technology. It's time this happened.

JohnDavidPodesta

You have conveniently missed the portion which explicitly expresses that the portrayal can occur in the written form.

Enigmatic_Continuum

When did we discuss written form? I thought we were talking about videos such as Elsagate. I don't believe in banning any books by the way, but I'm not including graphic novels and comics when I say this. Only the written word.

JohnDavidPodesta

Grounds for a class action Lawsuit against the corporate entity Youtube for their wilful or grossly negligent role in the exploitation of minors.

"Elsagate" is a disturbing phenomenon which was uncovered through the intensive research of members of the public.

We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.

Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offences. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text..

In Miller v. California (1973) - the currently-binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue - the Court ruled materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

Elsagate For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law. http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1532983749398.png

CEOS’s Role The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) remains dedicated to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorney´s Offices throughout the country to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. The use of the Internet to distribute obscenity has blurred traditional notions of jurisdiction. CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus to help coordinate nationwide investigations and initiatives. Given the importance of community standards under the Miller test, however, CEOS recognizes that the full commitment and support of local United States Attorney´s Offices, who best know local community standards, are absolutely essential to the federal obscenity enforcement efforts.

CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON OBSCENITY 18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property 18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes 18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language 18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture 18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television 18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions 18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C).

archive: http://archive.is/36aok open: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/180601986 .

Enigmatic_Continuum

Hey, John. You still here? Please clarify what you mean here:

We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.

Are you saying that you want a class action lawsuit forced on everyone who tweeted about Elsagate? Even the ones who were speaking out against it because, as you state, it indirectly caused minors to become curious about Elsagate? Is this what you're communicating?

JohnDavidPodesta

Freedom of The Press is protected by the 1st amendment, I do certainly acknowledge the paradoxical situation you are presenting.

However your intentions are sour. I see you work for the FBI, not surprising.

Enigmatic_Continuum

OK, well, this has been fun and all, but you're starting to bore me. Maybe if you'd tweeted what I requested, I'd still be interested in chatting.

(By the way, excellent job writing in the way JP would speak. That was superb. Crafty LARP indeed!)

Enigmatic_Continuum

I understand that the press is protected by the first amendment.

How are my intentions sour? I'm only trying to grasp exactly what you're saying.

What makes you think I work for the FBI?

Enigmatic_Continuum

That's the long form f what I posted. Are you saying you're one of the good guys and are directly helping to go after those involved with Elsagate and the celebrities you stated?

Are_we_sure

You do ynderstand that the FCC does not regulate the internet right?

Enigmatic_Continuum

You obviously didn't read my entire reply, or you would've seen that I addressed this in my last sentence.

Still having those reading comprehension issues, I see.

Are_we_sure

You're not really good at structuring your thoughts

Enigmatic_Continuum

@JohnDavidPodesta @PollyPeterson

Please stop commenting in the deleted thread and post here instead.

carmencita

I agree all too depressing. This is why Satanism has been so heavily pushed. They are all about this porn and hoping to push it on Our Children and then open them up to the hard corn porn found on the internet. We know that some pedos say they only watch adult porn and not kids, but we also know that it is just a step away. So what is to keep Our Children from reaching that one step beyond as well. Sick and Sad and Oh So Frustrating.

JohnDavidPodesta

Carmencita it is my understanding you are a Catholic, well something which isn't mentioned nearly often enough is the original depiction of Satan as God's Chief Advocate, Accuser and Executioner. The highest ranking angel is the Seraphim, with six wings. Seraphim are defined as "serpent" and hence where the amalgamation of the characters' role comes into play.

Oh_Well_ian

Carmencita it is my understanding you are a Catholic

Really? How did you come to that conclusion, Skippy? After all, you have only been here barely 2 hours. 0_o

JohnDavidPodesta

Call it intuition.

Oh_Well_ian

Remember this?? Good times, huh?

Being a pol wonk, I'm familiar with Podesta's work ever since the Clinton Administration and I must say, the syntax lines up.

Is this really you, JP?

Enigmatic_Continuum

Yeah, thanks for the sliver of history there, but let's not wash over the main point of her post about how prevalent Satanism has become in our culture and working to destroy its wholesome fabric.

carmencita

God through out the devil ages ago. I don't go to church and have not read up on the teachings for years. I know what is in my heart and I pray every day. Not to the devil to God and His Mother Mary. That keeps me busy enough besides being on here every day on and off.

JohnDavidPodesta

Grounds for a class action Lawsuit against the corporate entity Youtube for their wilful or grossly negligent role in the exploitation of minors.

"Elsagate" is a disturbing phenomenon which was uncovered through the intensive research of members of the public.

We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.

Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offences. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text..

In Miller v. California (1973) - the currently-binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue - the Court ruled materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

Elsagate For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law. http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1532983749398.png

CEOS’s Role The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) remains dedicated to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorney´s Offices throughout the country to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. The use of the Internet to distribute obscenity has blurred traditional notions of jurisdiction. CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus to help coordinate nationwide investigations and initiatives. Given the importance of community standards under the Miller test, however, CEOS recognizes that the full commitment and support of local United States Attorney´s Offices, who best know local community standards, are absolutely essential to the federal obscenity enforcement efforts.

CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON OBSCENITY 18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property 18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes 18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language 18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture 18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television 18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions 18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C).

archive: http://archive.is/36aok open: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/180601986

30th June 2018