Is it against the law to download incest stories?
Downloading erotic stories in illinois
I thought the only things people could do legally in Illinois, now, was to vote democrat in any election, and that was all.
I thought the only things people could do legally in Illinois, now, was to vote democrat in any election, and that was all.
No, that's what the dead do in Illinois every single election. Really, if Chicago and Crook County would fall into Lake Michigan, most of the rest of the state is actually pretty decent. (East St. Louis being the exception.)
I thought the only things people could do legally in Illinois, now, was to vote democrat in any election, and that was all.
That's mandatory in Cook Co, but the rest of the state is free
Is it against the law to download incest stories?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think so.
Now it's illegal to commit incest, but not to read about it. Now if what you're reading is considered obscene in your local community, I still don't think it's illegal to download or read it. Distribute it, yes, but not read it.
But I'm not a lawyer.
I still don't think it's illegal to download or read it. Distribute it, yes, but not read it.
Possession and distribution are the keywords. If possession is prohibited, wherever you're living, it's illegal to download a particular story. If only distribution and/or production is criminal, go on and enjoy your reprobate lifestyle.
Possession and distribution are the keywords.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but possession (and distribution) is illegal for child porn. But that's pictures and videos, not stories. Incest is different than child porn. It's illegal to do it, but I don't think it's illegal to have a picture of it.
The First Amendment protects stories, even child porn, unless it's considered obscene by local standards. The Supreme Court ruled if it passes the Miller Test it's okay. Obscene could be child porn, incest, bestiality, or even gore. There is no clear definition of "obscene."
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but...
I just watched Game of Thrones and learned that everything in a sentence before the word 'but' is bullshit.
just watched Game of Thrones and learned that everything in a sentence before the word 'but' is bullshit.
People who base their decisions and lives on what they see and hear produced by the Entertainment Business have serious problems ahead of them.
On numerous occasions, the bullshit follows 'but'; while on others, it is all bullshit.
I just watched Game of Thrones and learned that everything in a sentence before the word 'but' is bullshit.
Sorry, wrong metaphor: Anything before 'but' is Dragon shit!
Obscene could be child porn, incest, bestiality, or even gore. There is no clear definition of "obscene."
One major caveat to the Miller Test is "no socially redeeming value", though the different parties definition of "redeeming" varies widely (most book burners see no "value" in liberal books of any kind).
(most book burners see no "value" in liberal books of any kind).
Was that meant to be ironic? Other than religious not-jobs, most modern day book burners call themselves liberal,
AJ
Was that meant to be ironic? Other than religious not-jobs, most modern day book burners call themselves liberal,
Obviously it was intended as ironic, but I don't know of many 'liberal' book burners. Most are either religious fanatics or politicians trying to whip up support for a political crackdown.
There's a big difference between parents wanting to 'protect' their kids (by keeping stories out of their hands), and physically burning books and crucifying authors who dare say things they disagree with.
There's a big difference between parents wanting to 'protect' their kids (by keeping stories out of their hands), and physically burning books and crucifying authors who dare say things they disagree with.
Which is the current modus operandi of the radical left. Silencing 'offensive' authors and speakers is modern-day book burning and censorship, in the the guise of 'inclusiveness'.
In the UK, there's a whole liberal left culture of 'safe spaces' (ie you don't have to see or listen to anything you might disagree with) and 'non-platforming' (eg Oxford University welcomes Moslem hate-peddlers but blanks Israeli academics). :(
AJ
In the UK, there's a whole liberal left culture of 'safe spaces' (ie you don't have to see or listen to anything you might disagree with) and 'non-platforming' (eg Oxford University welcomes Moslem hate-peddlers but blanks Israeli academics). :(
We have that same crap here. As I like to say, being offended is a feature of Free Speech, not a bug.
Some of us see a difference between Free Speech & Hate Speech.
When mother hens are rallying support in protecting their broods, it's difficult to publicly come out against 'common sense'. You may be right, but that won't keep your job when you offend every PTA across the country!
I would argue that there is nothing common about common sense. In fact, I think it is about as rare as finding compassion in a conservative or Christian values in a televangelist.
Some of us see a difference between Free Speech & Hate Speech
Surely, hate speech is a subset of free speech, and can only diminish free speech by its exclusion. Incitement is another matter.
Surely, hate speech is a subset of free speech, and can only diminish free speech by its exclusion. Incitement is another matter.
The problem is in separating them. Hatred and incitement are often spewed in the same sentence, and the hate-mongers are not good about policing themselves.
The problem is in separating them.
I would not have thought it to difficult.
Incitement is an urging or encouragement to act in a violent or unlawful manner. Even inference that acting so is OK is considered incitement.
I would have thought that the difference between stating a position, and encouraging others to act, should not be too hard to distinguish.
I would have thought that the difference between stating a position, and encouraging others to act, should not be too hard to distinguish.
The courts would beg to disagree, especially since, under the Constitution's "Freedom of Speech" clause, you're free to discuss you own political beliefs, even if they involve violently overthrowing the current government. Thus agreeing with killing someone is fine, while telling following to personally kill person X is not, and so no one ever phrases their attacks that way.
Incitement is an urging or encouragement to act in a violent or unlawful manner. Even inference that acting so is OK is considered incitement.
Not quite. To fall outside the protection of the First Amendment, it has to be incitement to imminent violent or unlawful action.
Saying it may be okay to riot at some unspecified time in the future is protected.
Advocating that people riot now is not.
To fall outside the protection of the First Amendment, it has to be incitement to imminent violent or unlawful action.
An amazing conditional, even for the US. How the Supreme Court decided "imminent lawless action" should be applied must make compelling reading, especially considering it was in relation to the KKK. How violence now and violence later are different in effect must surely just be duck-shoving.
How violence now and violence later are different in effect must surely just be duck-shoving.
It isn't the difference between violence now and violence later that matters.
It's the strength of the connection between the speech and the violence.
It's the difference between speech now that is highly likely to lead to violence now and speech now that may or may not lead to violence at some uknown time in the future.
The difference is in the degree of uncertainty in the connection between the speech and the violence.
It isn't the difference between violence now and violence later that matters. It's the strength of the connection between the speech and the violence.
I'm not sure that aligns with human nature.
If a listener takes their time to understand the detail and plan the better executed violence at a later date then the speech that precipitated that is OK. Hmm.
I guess that is how the Imams (and others) can get away with building hate and acts of violence slowly. Nobody can challenge them at the time the seeds are planted and watered.
Would Hitler have had a free pass for much of what he said as well?
I would bet the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves over the interpretation, and many other things as well of course.
Would Hitler have had a free pass for much of what he said as well?
Absolutely not, he took the Trump route of calling for 'round them up now!'. However, a little known detail of history is that Hitler based his entire regime on American attitudes, in that he believed our system of racial segregation was something that should be spread across Europe.
We were Hitler's ideal, not his opposition. In fact, until we were attacked by Hitler's allies, Japan, we had little interest in the building 'European War'. In fact, we had frequent pro-Nazi rallies in New York City, of all places, frequently led by the popular movie stars of the time.
Some things just never seem to change, no matter how much we tell ourselves that we've improved over time.
system of racial segregation
He didn't want to just segregate them, he wanted them eliminated completely.
At least the US had a use for slaves, and wanted them to breed for more free labour.
I'm not sure that aligns with human nature.
If a listener takes their time to understand the detail and plan the better executed violence at a later date then the speech that precipitated that is OK. Hmm.
It's not about human nature, but about what can be proved about the relationship between speech and violence in a court of law.
If I speak now about the justifiability of violence in a particular context and six months later someone commits an act of violence in a similar context:
1) How do you prove that my speech was the cause of the violence?
2) How do you eliminate the possibility of subsequent intervening causes?
3) If multiple causes are present, how do you rank them?
4) How high in the ranking of multiple causes does speech need to be before it makes sense to exempt it from First Amendment protection?
what can be proved about the relationship between speech and violence in a court of law
1) You shouldn't need to. The incitement should be enough, regardless of whether it had any demonstrable effect. That it could have an effect should be enough.
2) You don't. Again, the cause and effect should not need to be established. E.g. it is enough to threaten someone's life. You don't have to actually kill them for some action to be taken against you.
3) Again, you don't. See my answer to 2) In the instances of multiple incitement to the same act, each inciter should be treated individually.
4) Again, no ranking. Treat each incitement individually. E.g. if three people threaten the same life, each is prosecuted individually, if the threats are independent.
I realise it would result in more cases, which should make the lawyers happy, but maybe not, because each of them would be much shorter :-)
1) You shouldn't need to. The incitement should be enough, regardless of whether it had any demonstrable effect. That it could have an effect should be enough.
2) You don't. Again, the cause and effect should not need to be established. E.g. it is enough to threaten someone's life. You don't have to actually kill them for some action to be taken against you.
Reminds me of some old Wrestling activities. A promoter had placed an open contract on a wrestler's head. Unknown how many were trying to collect it. He even admitted to the contract on broadcast TV programming.
I had a simple solution for that contract as follows:
1: Walk up to him while he was talking on one of those programs, with a nice friendly smile.
2: Pull a shotgun or equivalent out.
3: Blow his head off while stating "Contract canceled".
4: Claim Self-defense when arrested since I had no way of knowing who was planning on filling the contract.
2. Yes, you do. True threats are not protected by the first amendment at all, however, incitement is something separate from true threats.
Your example of threatening someone's life would fall under true threats, not incitement. incitement is encouraging someone else to do something.
3. Again, yes you do. First, when I talked about intervening causes, I was not at all referring to additional incitements.
Let me posit a hypothetical example.
1. I say that someone should kill Fred. This is not covered by true threats, because I didn't say I was going to kill Fred.
2. Two weeks later, Fred has an affair with Bob's wife. They get caught by Bob.
3. Two weeks later, Bob kills Fred.
Did Bob kill Fred because of my speech or because Fred was fucking Bob's wife?
4. Again, yes ranking. We aren't talking about multiple incitements, but one singular incitement plus additional motivations separate and distinct from any incitement.
Let me posit a hypothetical example.
This discussion is quite interesting to me. I hope I don't piss you off before I learn something new.
I don't understand why there needs to be an outcome (e.g. a violent action) before the incitement to violence is actionable. All four of your original questions assume an outcome. Is this the result of some judiciary decision? It implies that the effectiveness of the incitement needs to be known in fact before the incitement can be prosecuted. What am I missing?
IRO your example:
1) How was it said? Was it addressed to friends or strangers? Was it said in jest?
Was it said in terms of 'Fred must be killed' and 'we must solve this problem ourselves', which is in the imperative voice, and holds more influence.
If a 'reasonable person' understood that you wanted Fred dead, and someone needed to do it, that is incitement.
If you used the passive voice amongst acquaintances to suggest things would be better if Trump was dead, as I am sure many are doing these days in jest, then it isn't incitement. A 'reasonable person' would understand that you are not actually encouraging other sto do it.
2,3: Again, I can't see why there needs to be an outcome for incitement to be determined.
The incitement prosecution process should be commenced on the decision about 1, not waiting for 2 or 3.
The fact that someone does kill Fred is really immaterial, because it could have had other motives, as indeed it seems to have. They aren't related.
Re ranking: It assumes an outcome is required for action to be taken against the incitement. Why is that necessary?
Incitements to violence should stand alone as a case to be actioned, without an outcome from the incitement. That it reasonably could result in violence should be enough.
I don't understand why there needs to be an outcome (e.g. a violent action) before the incitement to violence is actionable.
No, there doesn't need to be an outcome as you put it as long as the incitement is to imminent violence (the speaker is explicitly advocating for immediate violence).
Is this the result of some judiciary decision?
Many straight up to the Supreme Court. They have allowed a few exceptions to the first amendment, but those are very specific and strictly limited.
The incitement prosecution process should be commenced on the decision about 1, not waiting for 2 or 3.
Again, an immediate prosecution process would require proving that the incitement was to imminent violent or lawless action.
Using my example, that would require several elements.
1. It would have to be possible for someone in the audience to reach Fred and attack Fred in the near future. Imminent is not limited to the next few seconds, but weeks later is going to be too much.
2. The audience has to react in a way that makes it more likely than not that someone will act on the incitement.
It assumes an outcome is required for action to be taken against the incitement. Why is that necessary?
It's not strictly necessary, if the imminence requirement can be met, but this is a significant hurdle.
Incitement can also be punished after the fact if the imminence requirement was not met. However, for criminal punishment (as opposed to a civil suit) this would pretty much require proving that the incitement was a "but for" cause of the violence.
That is to say that to criminally punish incitement without imminence, you have to show that the violent action would not have happened but for the incitement.
Incitements to violence should stand alone as a case to be actioned, without an outcome from the incitement. That it reasonably could result in violence should be enough.
That's not what the law is, and there are good reasons why the law is the way it is. My example was not meant to articulate the conditions that are required to punish incitement, but to illustrate why imminence is required.
The point is, if the incitement isn't to imminent violence, violence might never occur or if it does, it might occur for reasons wholly unrelated to the alleged incitement.
if the incitement isn't to imminent violence, violence might never occur
I guess I am back to the imminence issue. I have a brain wobble when I try to understand why imminence is important.
Even if the incitement is to imminent violence, the violence might not occur.
I would love to understand why the court decided on imminence as a test, when an outcome isn't.
Perhaps the Justices were grasping at some straw to allow them to curtail incitement, even if just a little bit, given the barrage of first amendment furore that would probably have happened if they didn't.
I have no problem seeing the difference between free speech, stating an observation or opinion, and incitement, calling for an action. Just because they are both using speaking (or writing) as a vehicle doesn't make them the same.
Maybe I am just not heavily enough immersed in the US Constitutional culture.
Wanna talk about guns? :-)
Maybe I am just not heavily enough immersed in the US Constitutional culture.
Probably. If you are really interested in understanding, the following link may help as it has links to the relevant US Supreme Court decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Wanna talk about guns? :-)
Sure, but I think this thread has gone far enough afield already. :-)
the following link may help
I doesn't help me much I'm afraid. I read it earlier on, trying to understand the reasoning, but it freely mixes 'advocate' and 'incite' which are two different things, and although it explains the timing of imminent, it doesn't explain why imminent is important as a differentiator. I still get a brain wobble reading it. Good thing I never wanted to be a lawyer.
Let's leave guns for a future thread on incest :-)
What you, as the prosecutor, can prove to a jury in, say, the panhandle of Florida, may be different from what you can prove to a jury in Manhattan.
What you, as the prosecutor, can prove to a jury in, say, the panhandle of Florida, may be different from what you can prove to a jury in Manhattan.
There are certain minimum standards that have been set by nationally by SCOTUS, and if they aren't met, you can get a directed jury verdict of not-guilty, or a jury verdict of guilty can be overturned on appeal because the case was legally insufficient to support a guilty verdict.
It's rare for that either of those things to happen, but they do happen.
How violence now and violence later are different in effect must surely just be duck-shoving.
It's simple. Thomas Jefferson talked frequently about the need for a new Revolution every seven years, yet he never suggested an armed insurrection. Thus he set a precedent which exists today for 'tolerated speech'.
Thomas Jefferson talked frequently about the need for a new Revolution
Well, not so far as I can see.
He said that [within healthy democracies] a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and was not inciting to violence at all, let alone the notion of imminent or not.
I do hope his words (written by the way) are not the foundation for the 'imminent ... action' ruling.
So fas as I can see, he didn't say seven (or twenty) years, he didn't say it frequently, and he never used the term 'revolution' in that context.
Some of us see a difference between Free Speech & Hate Speech.
Being offended or upset by speech is a feature of Free Speech, not a bug. Once you decide you can limit or control speech based on feelings, it is no longer free.
Which is the current modus operandi of the radical left. Silencing 'offensive' authors and speakers is modern-day book burning and censorship, in the the guise of 'inclusiveness'.
I'm sorry, but that's hardly a 'tool of the left', as it alternately flips between the left and the right in different permutations. Instead, it's the position of overprotective parents of ANY political stripe, being it Red-blooded American Conservatives, Idealistic Liberal Elites or Radical Muslims. Trying to pin a basic human tendency on any single political party is akin to blaming ALL cases of infidelity on Bill Clinton. He didn't start the trend, nor is he the only one who's ever been guilty of it.
This is a battle the 'liberal elite' (I find those claims asinine, as there are plenty of conservative professors and students at each of those universities too) university campuses are continually waging, as the college administrations would LOVE to ban it, but face fierce opposition from contributors, parents and various political factions.
In short, whoever is 'in charge' at the time are the ones who get blamed for bowing to pressure. And, in case you haven't noticed, liberals are hardly 'in charge' of anything anymore!
Obviously it was intended as ironic, but I don't know of many 'liberal' book burners. Most are either religious fanatics or politicians trying to whip up support for a political crackdown.
Clearly, you haven't heard about the many cases of groups trying to get 19th century classics like Tom Sawyer banned from school libraries because they are "racist".
Clearly, you haven't heard about the many cases of groups trying to get 19th century classics like Tom Sawyer banned from school libraries because they are "racist".
No, clearly I have. Except, those are typically not political efforts, except in that they're typically 'parent led' initiatives which typically find support in whichever political party is receptive at the moment. There is nothing inherently liberal or conservative in book burning. Trying to pin the actions on which party you currently disagree with is disingenuous, at best.
I've NEVER supported banning books by any party, though I've long been conflicted by Germany's struggles to ban/allow the publishing of Mein Kampf, since it's been used by neo-Nazi hate groups for generations.
Sometimes, there simply aren't any easy answers either way.
No, clearly I have. Except, those are typically not political efforts,
Frequently either a high profile advocate such as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or a political organization such as local NAACP chapters are involved in such efforts when it comes to getting books, especially classics removed from school libraries for "racist" content.
Obviously it was intended as ironic, but I don't know of many 'liberal' book burners.
Sometimes the irony is attenuated over the net. I myself was uncertain of your comments.
Liberals don't literally burn books these days, they just want to classify anything they don't want to hear as 'hate speech' which they then proclaim as not free speech, but that viewpoint recently lost 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
If you want specific legal advice, consult a lawyer.
Since you've said you're in Illinois, stories generally, including erotic stories, are protected by the First Amendment.
In 2000 the US Congress passed a law to ban "virtual" child pornography (stories, drawings, animated cartoons, movies done with young looking adult actors/actresses).
That law was struck down by the Supreme court in 2003.
If you want specific legal advice, consult a lawyer.
Since you've said you're in Illinois, stories generally, including erotic stories, are protected by the First Amendment.
In 2000 the US Congress passed a law to ban "virtual" child pornography (stories, drawings, animated cartoons, movies done with young looking adult actors/actresses).
That law was struck down by the Supreme court in 2003.
Because the U.S. has such a long and storied history with censorship (backed by the 'Freedom of the Press' clause in the Constitution), it's largely unconstitutional to ban ANY category of book, though that doesn't stop individual prosecutors from launching criminal charges in order to bolster their chances of winning a public office. In short, if you can't afford millions of dollars in legal defense fees, then there's little you can do about it, and they know it! :(
though that doesn't stop individual prosecutors from launching criminal charges in order to bolster their chances of winning a public office.
True, but they can only go after the authors/posters for that. Distributing "obscene" material is illegal, but mere possession of such materials generally is not.
Also, if you are some piddling little any mouse that no one has heard of, and have no money to put up a defense for a showcase trial, prosecuting you won't do much for their career.
Also, if you are some piddling little any mouse that no one has heard of, and have no money to put up a defense for a showcase trial, prosecuting you won't do much for their career.
There are several SOL authors who are no longer allowed to own a computer who'd object to that generalization. All a prosecutor needs is one or two 'extreme' cases to generate outrage among their constituents, especially if they don't understand the specifics. Those attacked don't need to be well-known, in fact, if they are, they're more likely to launch a successful defense, which negates the effort to castigate such people as a 'clear and present danger' to the American way of life.
There are several SOL authors who are no longer allowed to own a computer who'd object to that generalization.
I didn't intend to imply that they wouldn't prosecute such cases, I was just saying that they aren't career makers.
All a prosecutor needs is one or two 'extreme' cases to generate outrage among their constituents
In order to generate that outrage, the case has to get high profile news coverage at least from local news operations, and that usually requires that there actually be a trial.
It's actually quite rare for a DA, or ADA to springboard into a political career from a single case. When it does happen, it's nearly always some high profile case that generates months of news coverage from a lengthy trial.