Greene is almost certainly innocent of charges-as-reported, BTW

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

SC's Greene indicted on felony obscenity charge
By MEG KINNARD (AP) – 5 hours ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Longshot U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene has been indicted on a felony charge of showing pornography to a South Carolina college student. Court records show a grand jury in Richland County handed down the indictment Friday for disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity. The Democratic nominee was also indicted on a misdemeanor charge of communicating obscene materials to a person without consent. Greene was arrested in November after authorities say he approached a student in a University of South Carolina computer lab, showed her obscene photos online, then talked about going to her dorm room.

_________________________

I am sure Greene is probably an uber-creep of some sort. This piece is about the law, not a defense of a creepy and threatening sort of behavior.


Note how the article used "obscenity" and "pornography" interchangeably. Good lord...

Obscenity is a legal term. Outside it's legal use it has no legal meaning.

Obscenity is an exception to the First Amendment and can only be determined on a work-by-work basis.

No subject matter is intrinsically obscene.

Pornography is not obscene. The two words mean different things. (All obscenity is explicitly sexual but not all explicit sexuality is obscene.)

I do not know the last time a work/picture/movie was found to be obscene in a federal court, but it is an uncommon occurrence. (Localities sometimes use obscenity charges to aharass and they have to be struck down in federal court.)

One cannot disseminate, procure or promote obscenity without the particular work being obscene.

It is illegal to show pornography to a child, yet legal to sell it or own it. That is not an obscenity charge. It involves no finding that the work in question is obscene. Only that it is sexually explicit or indecent or whatever it takes to be "adults only" in that you cannot show it to a child. (Think of it like giving a child a beer. Beer is legal, but it is illegal to give a child a beer.)

But it sounds ike the victim in the Greene case was over 18.

As a matter of LAW this sounds like a bizarre put-up job -- a case where a prosecutor cannot reasonably expect a legally proper conviction and thus a case where the prosecutor should be in fired. (And probably be in jail if I was running things.)

I think walking up to some woman and showing her porn unbidden is way creepy and ought to be legally prevented in some way... but not as promoting obscenity! Unless the picture shown is, in fact, obscene, which almost nothing is.

(BTW: Child pornography is illegal without necessarily being obscene. It can also be obscene, but it is a separate exception to the first amendment. If he showed her something with minors the charge would not be limited to promoting obscenity.)

So I really cannot think what this man could have possibly shown someone that was presumptively obscene.

He "showed her obscene photos online" in the computer lab. Sounds like he showed her a website.

Obscenity is not contextual. His creepiness cannot bootstrap a work into being obscene. Obscenity is intrinsic to the work, not intrinsic to circumstances.

It is illegal to show *obscene* materials on a web-site. Period.

So where is the obscenity prosecution of the website? I mean, they were showing it to millions, whatever "it" was...

Things that make you go Hmmm.

If it was adults pictured the charge sounds like straight-up prosecutorial abuse.

This does not, however, assure that he will be aquited. Juries sometimes do whatever the hell they want in obscenity cases, no matter how clear the instructions.

[HipChick]

1. Of course, he's already been convicted in the court of public opinion

[HipChick]

2. dupe

[panader0]

3. What's really obscene is war

What if he showed her photos of men women and children blown up in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[LisaL]

4. In this case, I have no problem whatsover with letting the jury, or

the judge, to decide. If what he allegedly did isn't illegal, I would think it ought to be.

[TheKentuckian]

5. That is logically sound. It would take some bizarre thing that doesn't spring to mind to fit

I don't get the silent response to the OP. What exactly do you folks want to be a felony offense to show you that isn't inherently illegal on other grounds that would certainly be stated in the charges.

Of course a slow seeming black guy in South Carolina can probably get convicted of assassinating Lincoln.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. something like misdemeanor "indecent assault"

The real offense here is somewhat related to exposing yourself to a woman in the park...

I think the alleged conduct is seriously fucked up behavior, but doesn't seem to fit the crime charged.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. You are mistaken

No South Carolina jury would convict *anyone* of assassinating Lincoln!

(joke)

[TheKentuckian]

15. True enough!

[lib2DaBone]

6. Did anyone figure out how Alvin got here in the first place?

He said he was broke , but somehow he came up with the $10,000 filing fee?

He says he can't remember any campaigning, but somehow he came up with enough signitures to enter the race?

Alvin Green is not sure what he office he is running for, but somehow (while he was sleeping), he got nominated? HUH?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. They found a guy who was going to be indicted for some sex crime soon...

...and made him the Dem nominee.

The rest is mysterious details.

It really is impressive work by somebody.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. I am sorry, but you are incorrect

Despite what he has said in court filings, he was not broke. He had a significant amount of money in the bank earned from his military service.

You are disputing his campaigning, particularly how many signatures he gathered? Would you care to enlighten us as to how many signatures are required?

[lib2DaBone]

12. From what I understand, 10,000 signitures are required to run for Senate in S.C.

You are correct, Freddie. Although Mr. Greene was unemployed.. he was frugal and managed to pay the $10,440 registration fee. Good for him.

Mr. Greene is truly one of the brightest and best political minds in the country today.. and he will make a fine leader for the Blue Dogs.

[LisaL]

17. I am pretty sure you understand wrong.

He did not collect 10,000 signatures as it is not required.

[lib2DaBone]

19. My Bad.. I stand corrected...

So how many signitures are required?

[LisaL]

20. As far as I know, none. As long as he could pay the filing fee.

Maybe they should change this.

[Jamastiene]

28. I believe the signature collecting deal is for a Write-In campagin and

usually not required for a candidate who is registered as a member of the party, not in the primaries. I know Write-Ins need signatures. The way I understand it, he wasn't a Write-In, or was he?

[LisaL]

30. No he was not a write in.

[Chef Eric]

26. Bwahaaaha! I just spit coffee all over my floor.

Thanks for the laugh.

[seabeyond]

11. •designed to incite to indecency or lust; lewd: abhorrent

•designed to incite to indecency or lust; "the dance often becomes flagrantly obscene"-Margaret Mead

•abhorrent: offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior"; "the most repulsive character in recent novels"

•lewd: suggestive of or tending to moral looseness; "lewd whisperings of a dirty old man"; "an indecent gesture"; "obscene telephone calls"; "salacious limericks"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


i am not arguing your post cause, well hell, i am not an attorney nor know law on this stuff.

but your defining obscenity doesnt seem to fit

[Jamastiene]

13. Well, obscenity laws in NC and SC include any depiction of intercourse, which

is usually what porn is.

There is a LOT more to it, too.

Here is a link:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

"SECTION 16-15-305. Disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity unlawful; definitions; penalties; obscene material designated contraband.

(A) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to disseminate obscenity. A person disseminates obscenity within the meaning of this article if he:

(1) sells, delivers, or provides or offers or agrees to sell, deliver, or provide any obscene writing, picture, record, digital electronic file, or other representation or description of the obscene;

(2) presents or directs an obscene play, dance, or other performance, or participates directly in that portion thereof which makes it obscene;

(3) publishes, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to any group or individual; or

(4) exhibits, presents, rents, sells, delivers, or provides; or offers or agrees to exhibit, present, rent, or to provide: any motion picture, film, filmstrip, or projection slide, or sound recording, sound tape, or sound track, video tapes and recordings, or any matter or material of whatever form which is a representation, description, performance, or publication of the obscene.

(B) For purposes of this article any material is obscene if:

(1) to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the material depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by subsection (C) of this section;

(2) the average person applying contemporary community standards relating to the depiction or description of sexual conduct would find that the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(3) to a reasonable person, the material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; and

(4) the material as used is not otherwise protected or privileged under the Constitutions of the United States or of this State.

(C) As used in this article:

(1) "sexual conduct" means:

(a) vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse, whether actual or simulated, normal or perverted, whether between human beings, animals, or a combination thereof;

(b) masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition, actual or simulated, of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples including male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal or covered male genitals in a discernably turgid state;

(c) an act or condition that depicts actual or simulated bestiality, sado-masochistic abuse, meaning flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in a costume which reveals the pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals, or female breast nipples, or the condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of the one so clothed;

(d) an act or condition that depicts actual or simulated touching, caressing, or fondling of, or other similar physical contact with, the covered or exposed genitals, pubic or anal regions, or female breast nipple, whether alone or between humans, animals, or a human and an animal, of the same or opposite sex, in an act of actual or apparent sexual stimulation or gratification; or

(e) an act or condition that depicts the insertion of any part of a person's body, other than the male sexual organ, or of any object into another person's anus or vagina, except when done as part of a recognized medical procedure.

(2) "patently offensive" means obviously and clearly disagreeable, objectionable, repugnant, displeasing, distasteful, or obnoxious to contemporary standards of decency and propriety within the community.

(3) "prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion and is reflective of an arousal of lewd and lascivious desires and thoughts.

(4) "person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm, club, or other legal or commercial entity.

(5) "knowingly" means having general knowledge of the content of the subject material or performance, or failing after reasonable opportunity to exercise reasonable inspection which would have disclosed the character of the material or performance. "


What he did would be obscene under the law in the Carolinas.

[Jamastiene]

14. Breastfeeding is ok though.

SECTION 16-15-130. Indecent exposure; breastfeeding.

(A)(1) It is unlawful for a person to wilfully, maliciously, and indecently expose his person in a public place, on property of others, or to the view of any person on a street or highway.

(2) This subsection does not apply to a woman who breastfeeds her own child in a public place, on property of others, to the view of any person on a street or highway, or any other place where a woman and her child are authorized to be.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A)(1) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


:D

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. No, that's "Miller Test" related and does not make the described obscene

What you are citing is the *preconditions* necessary for something to be eligible to be obscene.

In the 1970s the US Supreme Court defined obscenity in the Miller case, creating a byzantine series of tests. The next year a Georgia jury found Mike Nichols film CARNAL KNOWLEDGE obscene so the SCOTUS had to revisit the matter and clarified, saying that as a precondition to possibly be obscene a work had to feature lascivious display of the genitals or hardcore sex or some shenanigans not found in mainstream Best Picture nominees.

If a work does not have the sexual conduct/content described then it *cannot* be obscene.

That does not mean that the described content *is* obscene.

Almost every cable system in the US offers hard-core (un-simulated) vaginal or oral intercourse on pay-per-view, for instance.

The most important part of the statute is this:

(4) the material as used is not otherwise protected or privileged under the Constitutions of the United States or of this State.

It is well established that 99%+ of adult porn is protected by the constitution of the United states, negating the rest of the statute.

Interestingly, the statute cited is unconstitutional in many places (nipples? No, the SCOTUS is pretty plain that female toplessness cannot be obscene)

But since they end with "unless protected by the US Constitution" the preceding is just some meaningless words.

It's like they said, ""No descendant of slaves may vote in South Carolina, unless afforded that right by the US Constitution." It would be offensive, but meaningless as law.

[Jamastiene]

27. I think we are talking about 2 different laws.

He is being tried, currently, in South Carolina. The law there is not the same as the federal law. Of course, depending on the outcome, he could take it to the SCOTUS, and then everything you just said applies. In the Carolinas, though, it does not apply...unless he takes it all the way to the SCOTUS.

I think it's important to mention this (and this applies to TODAY, not the 1970s): If we are in a video store, we have to ask to see if they have "any other videos" in a book under the counter. Before you can see that book, we still have to ask each other if we are members of law enforcement or working with law enforcement. It has to go both ways and both have to agree that we are in no way affiliated with law enforcement. Only then can we see the book and ask to rent the video.

I know it's crazy and absolutely ridiculous, but it's true and you can't get the porn unless you go through that whole anti-"entrapment" thing. That's why we love the internet much much better. It's a whole lot less bullshit to see a movie.

[varkam]

29. I believe that state constitutions have to, at minimum...

offer the same protections offered by the federal constitution. In other words, the federal constitution sets the "floor" on which all state constitutions have to at least be on the same footing. States can offer more legal protections than are offered by the federal constitution, but not less.

So, the point being that I don't think he would have to appeal it up to SCOTUS. The fact-finder would basically have to apply the tests that SCOTUS has promulgated on obscenity (and, if not them, then presumably the state's appellate and supreme courts).

At least, that's how I understand it.

[Jamastiene]

31. Either way, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I do know many laws down here are enforced in that whole "morality this and morality that" sort of mindset. It's a whole 'nother world down here, good and bad.

[varkam]

33. That's true as well.

As you point out, law in a ivory tower vacuum is one thing, whereas law-as-applied by trial judges, juries, and prosecutors across the land is quite another -- which is why there are appellate courts (though that's definitely not the ideal route to go).

[Bitwit1234]

16. The thing is this man was being investigated for this

he even was mentioned to run for the senate. Why did they approve his run, and why if this is a felony, why wasn't it pursued earlier, before he ran. Why did they wait.

[LisaL]

18. There is no law that he can not run simply because he is

accused of a felony.

[blogslut]

21. Here's the charge and the CODE

http://www4.rcgov.us/publicindex/PICaseDetails.aspx?County=40+&Casenum=I881105&CourtType=L&CaseType=Criminal&CourtAgency=40120&LastName=Greene&FirstName=Alvin">The charge:

Greene, Alvin Michael
0372-Disseminating, Procurring or Promoting Obsenity
04/09/2010

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.htm">The South Carolina CODE:

SECTION 16-15-250. Communicating obscene messages to other persons without consent.

It is unlawful for a person to anonymously write, print, telephone, transmit a digital electronic file, or by other manner or means communicate, send, or deliver to another person within this State, without that person's consent, any obscene, profane, indecent, vulgar, suggestive, or immoral message.

A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[msanthrope]

22. And thus Greene is probably going to be found guilty....

as it was without her consent.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. That's the misdemeanor (Updated obscene phone-call law)

Obscene phone calls are prevented so similar conduct in person is prevented, which certainly makes sense.

The statute is facially unconstitutional ("or immoral message"???) but Greene is probably guilty of parts of it that are Constitutional.

The felony component was more my concern.

And is SC titles their laws ignorantly, like using "Promoting Obsenity" (mis-spelled) to describe a charge that does not involve obscenity then that's just how they roll.

[msanthrope]

23. Do you have the actual charges, i.e. the statutes? n/t

[blogslut]

32. Here's how obscenity arrest/indictment/prosecution works

The person or entity is indicted on the charges and then it's up to the jury to determine whether or not the material in question is obscene.

It's a guilty-until-proven-innocent thing - literally.