QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 2nd May 2010, 2:14pm)
I'm sorry, but that's a scary thought. I'm in full support of child porn laws. But this is not a child porn law, it's an obscenity law. And obscenity laws are effectively thoughtcrimes.
Why is an obscenity law a thoughtcrime? A thoughtcrime is essentially private, yes? How is public obscenity private? Society seems to have a different attitude towards the same visual presentation depending on whether (a) entirely in private between consenting adults - fully tolerant (b) 'top shelf' material - mildly tolerant © exactly the same thing displayed in full public view - little tolerance at all.
A thought experiment: imagine if some of the images on Wikipedia commons were shown on a bus advertisement. Would that be deemed acceptable or not? And if not, and if the law were brought to effect, would that be for thoughtcrime or something else?