<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_10_0140245</id>
	<title>Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obscenity Standards</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265797260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dark\_requiem writes <i>"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be <a href="http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/03/convictions-upheld-resentencing-ordered-max-hardco/">judged by the standards of the strictest community</a> that is able to access it. The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little, aka Max Hardcore, for violating obscenity laws in Tampa, despite the fact that the 'obscene' material in question was produced and sold in California. From the article: 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities. In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime. ... Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole &mdash; the Middle District of Florida" &mdash; would view the material.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dark \ _requiem writes " The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it .
The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little , aka Max Hardcore , for violating obscenity laws in Tampa , despite the fact that the 'obscene ' material in question was produced and sold in California .
From the article : 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little 's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities .
In other words , the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else .
But if they violate the standards of one community , they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime .
... Jurors in Little 's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how " the average person of the community as a whole    the Middle District of Florida "    would view the material .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dark\_requiem writes "The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it.
The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little, aka Max Hardcore, for violating obscenity laws in Tampa, despite the fact that the 'obscene' material in question was produced and sold in California.
From the article: 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities.
In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else.
But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime.
... Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole — the Middle District of Florida" — would view the material.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084098</id>
	<title>The First Amendment (*)</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1265028480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We clearly all forgot that little footnote in the Bill of Rights which says "not a guarantee, void where prohibited by law, some rights sold separately"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We clearly all forgot that little footnote in the Bill of Rights which says " not a guarantee , void where prohibited by law , some rights sold separately "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We clearly all forgot that little footnote in the Bill of Rights which says "not a guarantee, void where prohibited by law, some rights sold separately"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088696</id>
	<title>Re:Anything less than a Burka is obscene</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1265052660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're mixing 2 things. Pornography is not in and of itself Obscene. Obscene requires failing all 3 points of the Miller test. A woman not wearing a burka but also not engaging in sexual conduct defined in the relevant state law would fail the 2nd test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're mixing 2 things .
Pornography is not in and of itself Obscene .
Obscene requires failing all 3 points of the Miller test .
A woman not wearing a burka but also not engaging in sexual conduct defined in the relevant state law would fail the 2nd test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're mixing 2 things.
Pornography is not in and of itself Obscene.
Obscene requires failing all 3 points of the Miller test.
A woman not wearing a burka but also not engaging in sexual conduct defined in the relevant state law would fail the 2nd test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083976</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's essentially the same as a ten year old case were some Baptist-fuck-minister in Tennessee or a similar state ordered some porn from a really, really sleazy couple in California. Then the couple was charged with sending obscenity through the mail.</p><p>I can't see why this isn't passed over as entrapment. The critical part of entrapment is "inducing someone to do something they <b>would not otherwise</b> have done". I'll bet the son of a bitch creamed his jeans with the porn a couple hundred times before reporting it to the post office.</p><p>It's also part of the race to the bottom on the internet.Germans don't want Nazi stuff traded, so eBay knuckles under. France doesn't like some other shit, so it's banned. Ragheads hate everything, so I guess we should all just go back to the sixth century.</p><p>OTOH, the camel-fuckers want to compete in sumo wrestling in the Olympics, so they want to add a bunch of clothes because they also think guy butt is obscene. Yeah, sumo in burqas -- that'll draw the crowds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's essentially the same as a ten year old case were some Baptist-fuck-minister in Tennessee or a similar state ordered some porn from a really , really sleazy couple in California .
Then the couple was charged with sending obscenity through the mail.I ca n't see why this is n't passed over as entrapment .
The critical part of entrapment is " inducing someone to do something they would not otherwise have done " .
I 'll bet the son of a bitch creamed his jeans with the porn a couple hundred times before reporting it to the post office.It 's also part of the race to the bottom on the internet.Germans do n't want Nazi stuff traded , so eBay knuckles under .
France does n't like some other shit , so it 's banned .
Ragheads hate everything , so I guess we should all just go back to the sixth century.OTOH , the camel-fuckers want to compete in sumo wrestling in the Olympics , so they want to add a bunch of clothes because they also think guy butt is obscene .
Yeah , sumo in burqas -- that 'll draw the crowds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's essentially the same as a ten year old case were some Baptist-fuck-minister in Tennessee or a similar state ordered some porn from a really, really sleazy couple in California.
Then the couple was charged with sending obscenity through the mail.I can't see why this isn't passed over as entrapment.
The critical part of entrapment is "inducing someone to do something they would not otherwise have done".
I'll bet the son of a bitch creamed his jeans with the porn a couple hundred times before reporting it to the post office.It's also part of the race to the bottom on the internet.Germans don't want Nazi stuff traded, so eBay knuckles under.
France doesn't like some other shit, so it's banned.
Ragheads hate everything, so I guess we should all just go back to the sixth century.OTOH, the camel-fuckers want to compete in sumo wrestling in the Olympics, so they want to add a bunch of clothes because they also think guy butt is obscene.
Yeah, sumo in burqas -- that'll draw the crowds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084758</id>
	<title>dont worry</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1265035200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ruling will probably be struck down on interstate commerce grounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ruling will probably be struck down on interstate commerce grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ruling will probably be struck down on interstate commerce grounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084420</id>
	<title>Net result</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265032440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Porn sites in the US will smell the java and move abroad, then sell their services from there (and pay tax there). Some bum on Aruba beach will become the figurehead CEO and business continues as usual. Case closed.</p><p>What? What else do you expect the result of this will be? That these "indecent" and "obscene" pages cease to exist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Porn sites in the US will smell the java and move abroad , then sell their services from there ( and pay tax there ) .
Some bum on Aruba beach will become the figurehead CEO and business continues as usual .
Case closed.What ?
What else do you expect the result of this will be ?
That these " indecent " and " obscene " pages cease to exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porn sites in the US will smell the java and move abroad, then sell their services from there (and pay tax there).
Some bum on Aruba beach will become the figurehead CEO and business continues as usual.
Case closed.What?
What else do you expect the result of this will be?
That these "indecent" and "obscene" pages cease to exist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084232</id>
	<title>This happens more than most people suspect</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265030220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one of the problems the type of business I am in has, its illegal to sell certain items in certain locales but adjoining ones can buy them.  In some cases its not even legal to ship through (we are talking environmental laws mostly - some protect the local industry laws too)</p><p>We used to joke that some locales would have inspectors waiting for the trucks to leave the warehouse, let alone arrive at stores to see if "contraband" was on board.  Of course this was all done to raise revenue for the locale.  Where it got messy were the same buyers ordering from other distribution centers in hopes of getting around the restriction.  My favorite restrictions are where the same product can be sold in a locale for one use but not another.  This of course requires signed off paperwork stating the buyer is using it for the legal reasons and we confirmed they are.  Trouble is, we have more money so if the buyer does something wrong we usually get fined for selling it.</p><p>Never underestimate the ability of government employees to abuse their position to impose their views upon you or bolster their community at the expense of yours</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one of the problems the type of business I am in has , its illegal to sell certain items in certain locales but adjoining ones can buy them .
In some cases its not even legal to ship through ( we are talking environmental laws mostly - some protect the local industry laws too ) We used to joke that some locales would have inspectors waiting for the trucks to leave the warehouse , let alone arrive at stores to see if " contraband " was on board .
Of course this was all done to raise revenue for the locale .
Where it got messy were the same buyers ordering from other distribution centers in hopes of getting around the restriction .
My favorite restrictions are where the same product can be sold in a locale for one use but not another .
This of course requires signed off paperwork stating the buyer is using it for the legal reasons and we confirmed they are .
Trouble is , we have more money so if the buyer does something wrong we usually get fined for selling it.Never underestimate the ability of government employees to abuse their position to impose their views upon you or bolster their community at the expense of yours</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one of the problems the type of business I am in has, its illegal to sell certain items in certain locales but adjoining ones can buy them.
In some cases its not even legal to ship through (we are talking environmental laws mostly - some protect the local industry laws too)We used to joke that some locales would have inspectors waiting for the trucks to leave the warehouse, let alone arrive at stores to see if "contraband" was on board.
Of course this was all done to raise revenue for the locale.
Where it got messy were the same buyers ordering from other distribution centers in hopes of getting around the restriction.
My favorite restrictions are where the same product can be sold in a locale for one use but not another.
This of course requires signed off paperwork stating the buyer is using it for the legal reasons and we confirmed they are.
Trouble is, we have more money so if the buyer does something wrong we usually get fined for selling it.Never underestimate the ability of government employees to abuse their position to impose their views upon you or bolster their community at the expense of yours</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084560</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265033460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seriously, obscenity? How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts? Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders. <strong>Check out those sexy ankles!</strong></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Pervert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , obscenity ?
How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts ?
Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders .
Check out those sexy ankles !
Pervert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, obscenity?
How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts?
Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders.
Check out those sexy ankles!
Pervert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084510</id>
	<title>You can do that?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1265033100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On my tiny sovereign island nation, it is now prohibited to be wrong on the internet. I expect the court of Atlanta to pay the standard fine within two weeks of this message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On my tiny sovereign island nation , it is now prohibited to be wrong on the internet .
I expect the court of Atlanta to pay the standard fine within two weeks of this message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my tiny sovereign island nation, it is now prohibited to be wrong on the internet.
I expect the court of Atlanta to pay the standard fine within two weeks of this message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084838</id>
	<title>My Take</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data that goes across the Internet is not obscene.  It's just one's and zero's.  It doesn't become obscene material until the device that receives the data assembles it into something that appears obscene.  Nothing obscene traveled across state lines.  These are not photos rolled up and shoved in an air tube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data that goes across the Internet is not obscene .
It 's just one 's and zero 's .
It does n't become obscene material until the device that receives the data assembles it into something that appears obscene .
Nothing obscene traveled across state lines .
These are not photos rolled up and shoved in an air tube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data that goes across the Internet is not obscene.
It's just one's and zero's.
It doesn't become obscene material until the device that receives the data assembles it into something that appears obscene.
Nothing obscene traveled across state lines.
These are not photos rolled up and shoved in an air tube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088266</id>
	<title>Obscene judging should be outlawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be a crime for judges to make obscene rulings such as this one.  I actually read TFA sure there was a catch but none to be found.</p><p>Lets forget about "porn" for now and ask a different question so the minds of the judges are a bit less clouded...</p><p>What if the garbage pail kids are concidered "indecent" in some backwards-ass town would the web site be liable when people located in that town download material that is known to the city of blah to cause obscenity?</p><p>What if the source state has laws that explicitly protect web site owners from such liability when "insert abitrary convention" is illegal in the receivers town?  Don't the downloaders have a duty not to do illegal things in thier jurisdiction? (Such as investigators downloading porn and justifying it as "just doing my job")</p><p>Does the answer change if no such explicit law exist?</p><p>What is the legal difference between "distributing" and "taking"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... On the Internet to access content you have to explicitly ask for it and the computers IP stack has to activly work on your behalf to receive such content.  In this case it is extremely unlikely for the reciever to be confused about what they were downloading/purchasing.</p><p>It seems to me that when arguments and legal theories don't scale (for example internationally) they are ususally fundementally wrong.  I would be surprised if similiar cases had not already been settled by the supreme court over more traditional channels... I'm just too lazy to look and like the rest of us I'm not a lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be a crime for judges to make obscene rulings such as this one .
I actually read TFA sure there was a catch but none to be found.Lets forget about " porn " for now and ask a different question so the minds of the judges are a bit less clouded...What if the garbage pail kids are concidered " indecent " in some backwards-ass town would the web site be liable when people located in that town download material that is known to the city of blah to cause obscenity ? What if the source state has laws that explicitly protect web site owners from such liability when " insert abitrary convention " is illegal in the receivers town ?
Do n't the downloaders have a duty not to do illegal things in thier jurisdiction ?
( Such as investigators downloading porn and justifying it as " just doing my job " ) Does the answer change if no such explicit law exist ? What is the legal difference between " distributing " and " taking " ... On the Internet to access content you have to explicitly ask for it and the computers IP stack has to activly work on your behalf to receive such content .
In this case it is extremely unlikely for the reciever to be confused about what they were downloading/purchasing.It seems to me that when arguments and legal theories do n't scale ( for example internationally ) they are ususally fundementally wrong .
I would be surprised if similiar cases had not already been settled by the supreme court over more traditional channels... I 'm just too lazy to look and like the rest of us I 'm not a lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be a crime for judges to make obscene rulings such as this one.
I actually read TFA sure there was a catch but none to be found.Lets forget about "porn" for now and ask a different question so the minds of the judges are a bit less clouded...What if the garbage pail kids are concidered "indecent" in some backwards-ass town would the web site be liable when people located in that town download material that is known to the city of blah to cause obscenity?What if the source state has laws that explicitly protect web site owners from such liability when "insert abitrary convention" is illegal in the receivers town?
Don't the downloaders have a duty not to do illegal things in thier jurisdiction?
(Such as investigators downloading porn and justifying it as "just doing my job")Does the answer change if no such explicit law exist?What is the legal difference between "distributing" and "taking" ... On the Internet to access content you have to explicitly ask for it and the computers IP stack has to activly work on your behalf to receive such content.
In this case it is extremely unlikely for the reciever to be confused about what they were downloading/purchasing.It seems to me that when arguments and legal theories don't scale (for example internationally) they are ususally fundementally wrong.
I would be surprised if similiar cases had not already been settled by the supreme court over more traditional channels... I'm just too lazy to look and like the rest of us I'm not a lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084806</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265035440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take your point, but don't give them ideas! Else we'll end up where suddenly it's a crime to just look at a harmless picture, that the Government thinks you shouldn't. The UK has already started passing such laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take your point , but do n't give them ideas !
Else we 'll end up where suddenly it 's a crime to just look at a harmless picture , that the Government thinks you should n't .
The UK has already started passing such laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take your point, but don't give them ideas!
Else we'll end up where suddenly it's a crime to just look at a harmless picture, that the Government thinks you shouldn't.
The UK has already started passing such laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083656</id>
	<title>So Iran's standards then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So by that measure we should censor all pictures of women's faces as it violates the decency standards of Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So by that measure we should censor all pictures of women 's faces as it violates the decency standards of Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by that measure we should censor all pictures of women's faces as it violates the decency standards of Iran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083746</id>
	<title>Little</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL, that's probably the silliest name you can have in that industry!</p><p>No wonder he's using a pseudonym...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , that 's probably the silliest name you can have in that industry ! No wonder he 's using a pseudonym.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, that's probably the silliest name you can have in that industry!No wonder he's using a pseudonym...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088892</id>
	<title>Re:Entrapment??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so really its the investigators that should be arrested and tried because THEY committed the crime (of bringing indecent material into that jurisdiction)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so really its the investigators that should be arrested and tried because THEY committed the crime ( of bringing indecent material into that jurisdiction )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so really its the investigators that should be arrested and tried because THEY committed the crime (of bringing indecent material into that jurisdiction)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31089542</id>
	<title>I find the shape of Florida to be offensive</title>
	<author>ghampton</author>
	<datestamp>1265055900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just dangling there for everyone to see. Have you no morals, Florida.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just dangling there for everyone to see .
Have you no morals , Florida .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just dangling there for everyone to see.
Have you no morals, Florida.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084962</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1265036520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.  Along the same vein, it amuses, and saddens me to no end that there are still 'dry' counties in the US, along with piles of blue laws regulating when alcohol can be sold.</p><p>The source is the same, back in whenthefuckever the moral upstanding rulers of the community decided the average working people needed protecting from the horrible sins they'd commit otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Along the same vein , it amuses , and saddens me to no end that there are still 'dry ' counties in the US , along with piles of blue laws regulating when alcohol can be sold.The source is the same , back in whenthefuckever the moral upstanding rulers of the community decided the average working people needed protecting from the horrible sins they 'd commit otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Along the same vein, it amuses, and saddens me to no end that there are still 'dry' counties in the US, along with piles of blue laws regulating when alcohol can be sold.The source is the same, back in whenthefuckever the moral upstanding rulers of the community decided the average working people needed protecting from the horrible sins they'd commit otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085952</id>
	<title>You're all missing the silver lining.</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1265040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon sells porn.</p><p>Have Jeff Bezos arrested and extridited to Florida.</p><p>Watch as Florida looks like the complete dipshits they are when routers across the country refuse to recognize any IP within the state of Florida. Let's see how well Floridians do without the internet.</p><p>Great firewall of China? Ha! They ain't seen nothin yet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon sells porn.Have Jeff Bezos arrested and extridited to Florida.Watch as Florida looks like the complete dipshits they are when routers across the country refuse to recognize any IP within the state of Florida .
Let 's see how well Floridians do without the internet.Great firewall of China ?
Ha ! They ai n't seen nothin yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon sells porn.Have Jeff Bezos arrested and extridited to Florida.Watch as Florida looks like the complete dipshits they are when routers across the country refuse to recognize any IP within the state of Florida.
Let's see how well Floridians do without the internet.Great firewall of China?
Ha! They ain't seen nothin yet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084930</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know this one is going to SCOTUS.</p></div><p>But, with this Supreme Court, why does the prospect of that happening make me feel kinda sick to my stomach?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know this one is going to SCOTUS.But , with this Supreme Court , why does the prospect of that happening make me feel kinda sick to my stomach ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know this one is going to SCOTUS.But, with this Supreme Court, why does the prospect of that happening make me feel kinda sick to my stomach?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085122</id>
	<title>Re:"The Community"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you imagine a 4chan community as the jury?<br>Now that's what I call having a "jury of your peers"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine a 4chan community as the jury ? Now that 's what I call having a " jury of your peers "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine a 4chan community as the jury?Now that's what I call having a "jury of your peers"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.</p><p>Seriously, <em>obscenity</em>? How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts? Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders. Check out those sexy ankles!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obscenity laws like this should n't even exist in this day and age.Seriously , obscenity ?
How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts ?
Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders .
Check out those sexy ankles !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.Seriously, obscenity?
How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts?
Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders.
Check out those sexy ankles!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862</id>
	<title>Entirely unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ruling is entirely unreasonable for two reasons:</p><p>(1) This effectively extends the jurisdiction of an community law to the entire country</p><p>(2) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every community</p><p>I don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable. It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country. I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling is entirely unreasonable for two reasons : ( 1 ) This effectively extends the jurisdiction of an community law to the entire country ( 2 ) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every communityI do n't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken , but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable .
It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country .
I really hope that this precedent is changed , either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ruling is entirely unreasonable for two reasons:(1) This effectively extends the jurisdiction of an community law to the entire country(2) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every communityI don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable.
It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country.
I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084662</id>
	<title>Re:Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech?</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1265034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the amount of debt that California is in, if you included a clause about confiscating the proceeds of the crime, then this might not be a bad idea at all!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the amount of debt that California is in , if you included a clause about confiscating the proceeds of the crime , then this might not be a bad idea at all !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the amount of debt that California is in, if you included a clause about confiscating the proceeds of the crime, then this might not be a bad idea at all!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084048</id>
	<title>For those of you too young to remember history</title>
	<author>zoomshorts</author>
	<datestamp>1265028000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The practise is called 'venue shopping'. http://epic.org/free\_speech/censorship/us\_v\_thomas.html</p><p>The Miller decision was applied and found to be applicable to this case. If you offend<br>someone in their place of residence, they are still offended. This is why buck naked fornicators<br>do not enter your home over the broadcast airways.</p><p>The Thomas case was a little different, but a conviction was obtained anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The practise is called 'venue shopping' .
http : //epic.org/free \ _speech/censorship/us \ _v \ _thomas.htmlThe Miller decision was applied and found to be applicable to this case .
If you offendsomeone in their place of residence , they are still offended .
This is why buck naked fornicatorsdo not enter your home over the broadcast airways.The Thomas case was a little different , but a conviction was obtained anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The practise is called 'venue shopping'.
http://epic.org/free\_speech/censorship/us\_v\_thomas.htmlThe Miller decision was applied and found to be applicable to this case.
If you offendsomeone in their place of residence, they are still offended.
This is why buck naked fornicatorsdo not enter your home over the broadcast airways.The Thomas case was a little different, but a conviction was obtained anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086564</id>
	<title>Good ol' misread...</title>
	<author>sircastor</author>
	<datestamp>1265043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else read that as:
<br> <i>Appeals Court Rules On Internet <b>Obesity</b> Standards</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else read that as : Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obesity Standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else read that as:
 Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obesity Standards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31102574</id>
	<title>ban the bible ;)</title>
	<author>multicsfan</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean a community can rule the bible obscene and ban any and all mention of the bible on the net?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean a community can rule the bible obscene and ban any and all mention of the bible on the net ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean a community can rule the bible obscene and ban any and all mention of the bible on the net?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083852</id>
	<title>Finally law is on our side!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perfect! Now we can have some GNU/Linux fans form a community, declare all proprietary  software obscene and shut down sites of Microsoft, Apple and so on! Wow, and I thought that I'll never see "A Year of Linux on Desktop"!<br> <br>What do you think, will RMS look good in black amish hat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfect !
Now we can have some GNU/Linux fans form a community , declare all proprietary software obscene and shut down sites of Microsoft , Apple and so on !
Wow , and I thought that I 'll never see " A Year of Linux on Desktop " !
What do you think , will RMS look good in black amish hat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perfect!
Now we can have some GNU/Linux fans form a community, declare all proprietary  software obscene and shut down sites of Microsoft, Apple and so on!
Wow, and I thought that I'll never see "A Year of Linux on Desktop"!
What do you think, will RMS look good in black amish hat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085982</id>
	<title>Less means more for us</title>
	<author>boulat</author>
	<datestamp>1265041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they disable the Internet access to their local community then we have less traffic to deal with.  This, in my humble opinion, is a win for the rest of the enlightened world in the US</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they disable the Internet access to their local community then we have less traffic to deal with .
This , in my humble opinion , is a win for the rest of the enlightened world in the US</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they disable the Internet access to their local community then we have less traffic to deal with.
This, in my humble opinion, is a win for the rest of the enlightened world in the US</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088116</id>
	<title>Violation of Individual Property Rights</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1265050380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are the true owner of your website, you would be allowed to put whatever you wanted on it.  The government is in effect saying that no person fully owns any website.  This is similar to how the government owns the mainstream media by fining organizations for the use of certain words that the government finds offensive.  People choose to visit websites just as they choose to view certain networks.  The government clearly doesn't believe that the individual has the capacity to judge which websites contain "appropriate material" as they define it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are the true owner of your website , you would be allowed to put whatever you wanted on it .
The government is in effect saying that no person fully owns any website .
This is similar to how the government owns the mainstream media by fining organizations for the use of certain words that the government finds offensive .
People choose to visit websites just as they choose to view certain networks .
The government clearly does n't believe that the individual has the capacity to judge which websites contain " appropriate material " as they define it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are the true owner of your website, you would be allowed to put whatever you wanted on it.
The government is in effect saying that no person fully owns any website.
This is similar to how the government owns the mainstream media by fining organizations for the use of certain words that the government finds offensive.
People choose to visit websites just as they choose to view certain networks.
The government clearly doesn't believe that the individual has the capacity to judge which websites contain "appropriate material" as they define it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31089604</id>
	<title>Turn this ruling around on them.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1265056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Start suing every religious group that has ANYTHING posted on the internet, using this precedent as your battle cry.</p><p>Watch how fast this decision gets reversed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Start suing every religious group that has ANYTHING posted on the internet , using this precedent as your battle cry.Watch how fast this decision gets reversed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start suing every religious group that has ANYTHING posted on the internet, using this precedent as your battle cry.Watch how fast this decision gets reversed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084836</id>
	<title>Very strict about polygamy . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1265035620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it.</p></div><p>Well, here in my parts, we are pretty damned strict about polygamy . . .
</p><p> . . . so change your monogamous ways, or be sued by me . . .
</p><p> . . . oh, and yes, my family tree has routing loops . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it.Well , here in my parts , we are pretty damned strict about polygamy .
. .
. .
. so change your monogamous ways , or be sued by me .
. .
. .
. oh , and yes , my family tree has routing loops .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it.Well, here in my parts, we are pretty damned strict about polygamy .
. .
. .
. so change your monogamous ways, or be sued by me .
. .
. .
. oh, and yes, my family tree has routing loops .
. .
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31092190</id>
	<title>Finally a way to get rid of online fundies!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick! Somebody form a community that considers Christianity and the Bible to be obscene! According to this ruling that will finally form a legal basis for removing it from the internet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick !
Somebody form a community that considers Christianity and the Bible to be obscene !
According to this ruling that will finally form a legal basis for removing it from the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick!
Somebody form a community that considers Christianity and the Bible to be obscene!
According to this ruling that will finally form a legal basis for removing it from the internet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084158</id>
	<title>I'm all for free speech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fags need to be shouted down for draining society of resources because they eat shit. They're diseased and serve no useful purpose with their rump roasting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fags need to be shouted down for draining society of resources because they eat shit .
They 're diseased and serve no useful purpose with their rump roasting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fags need to be shouted down for draining society of resources because they eat shit.
They're diseased and serve no useful purpose with their rump roasting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086706</id>
	<title>Palin Bear</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Killing polar bears is offensive in my community. Book Palin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Killing polar bears is offensive in my community .
Book Palin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Killing polar bears is offensive in my community.
Book Palin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083762</id>
	<title>Re:So Iran's standards then?</title>
	<author>FTWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that this ruling only considers communities within the USA. But presumably, if (e.g.) an amish community decided that the very concept of a website was <i>obscene</i> (rather than just objectionable or undesirable), it would be valid under this precedent for them to sue everyone who ever produced a website.
<br> <br>You poor chaps over the pond really do seem to have the most bizarre legal decisions made for you, sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that this ruling only considers communities within the USA .
But presumably , if ( e.g .
) an amish community decided that the very concept of a website was obscene ( rather than just objectionable or undesirable ) , it would be valid under this precedent for them to sue everyone who ever produced a website .
You poor chaps over the pond really do seem to have the most bizarre legal decisions made for you , sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that this ruling only considers communities within the USA.
But presumably, if (e.g.
) an amish community decided that the very concept of a website was obscene (rather than just objectionable or undesirable), it would be valid under this precedent for them to sue everyone who ever produced a website.
You poor chaps over the pond really do seem to have the most bizarre legal decisions made for you, sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084412</id>
	<title>In that case...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a pedophile, and I find the lack of child pornography on this internet obscene.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a pedophile , and I find the lack of child pornography on this internet obscene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a pedophile, and I find the lack of child pornography on this internet obscene.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085860</id>
	<title>Just admit it, you knew this was coming..</title>
	<author>Anonymous Meoward</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>1. Spam porn to every Internet user in Tampa</li>
<li>2. Set up a bail bond business in Tampa</li>
<li>3. Notify the local authorities about the abundance of pervs</li>
<li>4. ( play theme from "Dragnet")</li>
<li>5. PROFIT!!!!!!!!1!!!</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Spam porn to every Internet user in Tampa 2 .
Set up a bail bond business in Tampa 3 .
Notify the local authorities about the abundance of pervs 4 .
( play theme from " Dragnet " ) 5 .
PROFIT ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
1.
Spam porn to every Internet user in Tampa
2.
Set up a bail bond business in Tampa
3.
Notify the local authorities about the abundance of pervs
4.
( play theme from "Dragnet")
5.
PROFIT!!!!!!!!1!!!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083752</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very true. Corporations are the Leviathan turned against the people instead of protecting them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
Corporations are the Leviathan turned against the people instead of protecting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
Corporations are the Leviathan turned against the people instead of protecting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083766</id>
	<title>idiot judge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now because of this idiotic ruling most every web site will need to locate offshore. By these standards we could not put the bible or anything else up as some community might take offense and object. Maybe we could outsource our court system, its obviously broken beyond repair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now because of this idiotic ruling most every web site will need to locate offshore .
By these standards we could not put the bible or anything else up as some community might take offense and object .
Maybe we could outsource our court system , its obviously broken beyond repair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now because of this idiotic ruling most every web site will need to locate offshore.
By these standards we could not put the bible or anything else up as some community might take offense and object.
Maybe we could outsource our court system, its obviously broken beyond repair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084616</id>
	<title>Democracy</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1265033940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government consulting citizens about laws?  Craziness!<br> <br>

OK, so this situation is a bit different, as it depends on whoever might be in the court that day instead of on a wide consensus of citizens, but I still wish the government actually asked citizens what they wanted, but everyone knows they don't want to as they want to stay in power.<br> <br>

No one from the government has yet asked me what I think about software patents!  I don't want to go out demonstrating, it's cold out.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government consulting citizens about laws ?
Craziness ! OK , so this situation is a bit different , as it depends on whoever might be in the court that day instead of on a wide consensus of citizens , but I still wish the government actually asked citizens what they wanted , but everyone knows they do n't want to as they want to stay in power .
No one from the government has yet asked me what I think about software patents !
I do n't want to go out demonstrating , it 's cold out .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government consulting citizens about laws?
Craziness! 

OK, so this situation is a bit different, as it depends on whoever might be in the court that day instead of on a wide consensus of citizens, but I still wish the government actually asked citizens what they wanted, but everyone knows they don't want to as they want to stay in power.
No one from the government has yet asked me what I think about software patents!
I don't want to go out demonstrating, it's cold out.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084598</id>
	<title>Re:"The Community"</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265033820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of thing has already been ruled on by SCOTUS, in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno\_v.\_American\_Civil\_Liberties\_Union" title="wikipedia.org">Reno v ACLU</a> [wikipedia.org]. There's a pretty clear SCOTUS precedent, and the 11th Circuit just decided to ignore it (why it never became a major part of the arguments is beyond me).</p><p>In addition, there's an argument that the only reason that the "obscene" materials were in that jurisdiction to begin with is that the police helpfully downloaded them. That's entrapment, pure and simple.</p><p>(IANAL, TINLA)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of thing has already been ruled on by SCOTUS , in Reno v ACLU [ wikipedia.org ] .
There 's a pretty clear SCOTUS precedent , and the 11th Circuit just decided to ignore it ( why it never became a major part of the arguments is beyond me ) .In addition , there 's an argument that the only reason that the " obscene " materials were in that jurisdiction to begin with is that the police helpfully downloaded them .
That 's entrapment , pure and simple .
( IANAL , TINLA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of thing has already been ruled on by SCOTUS, in Reno v ACLU [wikipedia.org].
There's a pretty clear SCOTUS precedent, and the 11th Circuit just decided to ignore it (why it never became a major part of the arguments is beyond me).In addition, there's an argument that the only reason that the "obscene" materials were in that jurisdiction to begin with is that the police helpfully downloaded them.
That's entrapment, pure and simple.
(IANAL, TINLA)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090170</id>
	<title>Irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard of Tampa - year, the city with high morals. Isn't 'Tampa-Bukakke' made there? (don't Google that one at work)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard of Tampa - year , the city with high morals .
Is n't 'Tampa-Bukakke ' made there ?
( do n't Google that one at work )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard of Tampa - year, the city with high morals.
Isn't 'Tampa-Bukakke' made there?
(don't Google that one at work)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084464</id>
	<title>Re:Entrapment??</title>
	<author>LoztInSpace</author>
	<datestamp>1265032800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that like the "War on drugs" where the consuming party shouts in moral outrage and actively persecutes the producers, irrespective of juristiction and the laws of the producer? (The laws may or may not roughly align, but that's not the point).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that like the " War on drugs " where the consuming party shouts in moral outrage and actively persecutes the producers , irrespective of juristiction and the laws of the producer ?
( The laws may or may not roughly align , but that 's not the point ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that like the "War on drugs" where the consuming party shouts in moral outrage and actively persecutes the producers, irrespective of juristiction and the laws of the producer?
(The laws may or may not roughly align, but that's not the point).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088520</id>
	<title>Re:Entirely unreasonable</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1265052060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(2) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every community</p></div></blockquote><p>
Laws are easy to figure out. This requires that someone know and understand the <b>mores</b> of every community and how that interacts with each posting they make.
<br>
Don't get your hopes up for the Supreme court to rule sanely on this. They declared that there was 'no proof of substantially different moral standards' in Nitke v Ashcroft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 2 ) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every community Laws are easy to figure out .
This requires that someone know and understand the mores of every community and how that interacts with each posting they make .
Do n't get your hopes up for the Supreme court to rule sanely on this .
They declared that there was 'no proof of substantially different moral standards ' in Nitke v Ashcroft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(2) This requires that someone know and understand all the laws of every community
Laws are easy to figure out.
This requires that someone know and understand the mores of every community and how that interacts with each posting they make.
Don't get your hopes up for the Supreme court to rule sanely on this.
They declared that there was 'no proof of substantially different moral standards' in Nitke v Ashcroft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086856</id>
	<title>community standards?? The community loves it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait..<br>From the article he sold over $40,000 worth of porn in the community he was charged in.<br>Without even taking theft, borrowing, and other methods of seeing this for free we are talking about what?<br>2,000 + people PAYING for this material and &lsquo;consuming&rsquo; it.</p><p>How can something be in violation of &lsquo;community standards&rsquo; when the community in question is consuming it by the thousands?</p><p>The judgment itself negates the charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait..From the article he sold over $ 40,000 worth of porn in the community he was charged in.Without even taking theft , borrowing , and other methods of seeing this for free we are talking about what ? 2,000 + people PAYING for this material and    consuming    it.How can something be in violation of    community standards    when the community in question is consuming it by the thousands ? The judgment itself negates the charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait..From the article he sold over $40,000 worth of porn in the community he was charged in.Without even taking theft, borrowing, and other methods of seeing this for free we are talking about what?2,000 + people PAYING for this material and ‘consuming’ it.How can something be in violation of ‘community standards’ when the community in question is consuming it by the thousands?The judgment itself negates the charges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090216</id>
	<title>Awful ruling</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The website can only be viewed if you actively seek it out. Likewise if you want obscene material in the physical world nothing is stopping you from getting it posted to you. Should every single business be held back by the most repressed neighbourhood full of parents who think everyone is a criminal and paedophile?
<br> <br>
I can understand applying this logic to concerts that are loud and played in the area but you can't say the whole nation has to comply to the most backwards people in the nation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The website can only be viewed if you actively seek it out .
Likewise if you want obscene material in the physical world nothing is stopping you from getting it posted to you .
Should every single business be held back by the most repressed neighbourhood full of parents who think everyone is a criminal and paedophile ?
I can understand applying this logic to concerts that are loud and played in the area but you ca n't say the whole nation has to comply to the most backwards people in the nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The website can only be viewed if you actively seek it out.
Likewise if you want obscene material in the physical world nothing is stopping you from getting it posted to you.
Should every single business be held back by the most repressed neighbourhood full of parents who think everyone is a criminal and paedophile?
I can understand applying this logic to concerts that are loud and played in the area but you can't say the whole nation has to comply to the most backwards people in the nation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085090</id>
	<title>Can you say Supreme Court?  Sure you can....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ruling is actually not the "Great Evil" it's being portrayed as.  We've got one Court of Appeals saying the one thing, and another saying the opposite (yes, Courts of Appeal have ruled the reverse several times in history).
</p><p>Which pretty much guarantees that if the defendant appeals to the Supremes, they'll have to take the case, and come up with a definitive ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling is actually not the " Great Evil " it 's being portrayed as .
We 've got one Court of Appeals saying the one thing , and another saying the opposite ( yes , Courts of Appeal have ruled the reverse several times in history ) .
Which pretty much guarantees that if the defendant appeals to the Supremes , they 'll have to take the case , and come up with a definitive ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ruling is actually not the "Great Evil" it's being portrayed as.
We've got one Court of Appeals saying the one thing, and another saying the opposite (yes, Courts of Appeal have ruled the reverse several times in history).
Which pretty much guarantees that if the defendant appeals to the Supremes, they'll have to take the case, and come up with a definitive ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085908</id>
	<title>Religious, not ethnic (!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene</p></div><p>Wouldn't "religious community" be a more accurate description?</p><p>Last I heard, the burka-wearing rules go with Islam, not with being a citizen of ${country where Islam is the dominant religion}.</p><p>I realise that there's a great degree of overlap, just like most (US) Americans are Christians, but for someone to talk about how people are going to set up a lot of crosses and churches in "the American community" sounds a bit silly, doesn't it?  You'd feel like they missed a (not so subtle) distinction, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obsceneWould n't " religious community " be a more accurate description ? Last I heard , the burka-wearing rules go with Islam , not with being a citizen of $ { country where Islam is the dominant religion } .I realise that there 's a great degree of overlap , just like most ( US ) Americans are Christians , but for someone to talk about how people are going to set up a lot of crosses and churches in " the American community " sounds a bit silly , does n't it ?
You 'd feel like they missed a ( not so subtle ) distinction , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obsceneWouldn't "religious community" be a more accurate description?Last I heard, the burka-wearing rules go with Islam, not with being a citizen of ${country where Islam is the dominant religion}.I realise that there's a great degree of overlap, just like most (US) Americans are Christians, but for someone to talk about how people are going to set up a lot of crosses and churches in "the American community" sounds a bit silly, doesn't it?
You'd feel like they missed a (not so subtle) distinction, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086992</id>
	<title>Re:No more Budweiser Super Bowl Ads?</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1265045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giant Faraday cage, imo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giant Faraday cage , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giant Faraday cage, imo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085058</id>
	<title>Re:Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget anti-abortion speech - declare the BIBLE "against community standards". There's enough rape, incest and genocide in that book to go around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget anti-abortion speech - declare the BIBLE " against community standards " .
There 's enough rape , incest and genocide in that book to go around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget anti-abortion speech - declare the BIBLE "against community standards".
There's enough rape, incest and genocide in that book to go around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084084</id>
	<title>Insanity</title>
	<author>sictransitgloriacfa</author>
	<datestamp>1265028300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is completely insane. Under this standard, Dan Savage could be prosecuted in Arkansas for writing about sex in California. A large percentage of the professional musicians in the US could be prosecuted for their lyrics. Everyone on 4chan could be prosecuted. (There had to be a silver lining somewhere.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is completely insane .
Under this standard , Dan Savage could be prosecuted in Arkansas for writing about sex in California .
A large percentage of the professional musicians in the US could be prosecuted for their lyrics .
Everyone on 4chan could be prosecuted .
( There had to be a silver lining somewhere .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is completely insane.
Under this standard, Dan Savage could be prosecuted in Arkansas for writing about sex in California.
A large percentage of the professional musicians in the US could be prosecuted for their lyrics.
Everyone on 4chan could be prosecuted.
(There had to be a silver lining somewhere.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087880</id>
	<title>Re:The First Amendment (*)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>*Past Performance is not a guarantee of Future Results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Past Performance is not a guarantee of Future Results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Past Performance is not a guarantee of Future Results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084648</id>
	<title>We all have to band together and overtake a town</title>
	<author>PJ1216</author>
	<datestamp>1265034240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and remove whatever we want off the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and remove whatever we want off the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and remove whatever we want off the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204</id>
	<title>Anything less than a Burka is obscene</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene then all photos etc. on the internet not showing a burka should be considered pornographic.  I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ridiculous thing I 've ever heard .
If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene then all photos etc .
on the internet not showing a burka should be considered pornographic .
I 've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene then all photos etc.
on the internet not showing a burka should be considered pornographic.
I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083822</id>
	<title>Call it issue advertising...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If restrictions on speech are unconstitutional to the point that anyone with enough money can drown out opposing viewpoints in an election, how the hell do they justify allowing a district in central Florida to censor the internet?</p><p>It is very likely that corporate advertising that lies and tries to scare people into voting a certain way offends the standards of more than a few communities- say, Berkeley, for one. Under this precedent, Berkeley should start suing the folks who air those highly offensive anti-healthcare reform ads. I guarantee you that they'll have a sympathetic jury if all it takes is a local community standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If restrictions on speech are unconstitutional to the point that anyone with enough money can drown out opposing viewpoints in an election , how the hell do they justify allowing a district in central Florida to censor the internet ? It is very likely that corporate advertising that lies and tries to scare people into voting a certain way offends the standards of more than a few communities- say , Berkeley , for one .
Under this precedent , Berkeley should start suing the folks who air those highly offensive anti-healthcare reform ads .
I guarantee you that they 'll have a sympathetic jury if all it takes is a local community standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If restrictions on speech are unconstitutional to the point that anyone with enough money can drown out opposing viewpoints in an election, how the hell do they justify allowing a district in central Florida to censor the internet?It is very likely that corporate advertising that lies and tries to scare people into voting a certain way offends the standards of more than a few communities- say, Berkeley, for one.
Under this precedent, Berkeley should start suing the folks who air those highly offensive anti-healthcare reform ads.
I guarantee you that they'll have a sympathetic jury if all it takes is a local community standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086860</id>
	<title>The First Amendment is a poor argument.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's not an absolute right, you don't have the right to incite riots or sell child porn, there is limitations. A better argument would be that local laws should not supersede state law and state law should not supersede federal law. Having local and state laws apply to people never been in your state and to someone who has never mailed anything to your state is just retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's not an absolute right , you do n't have the right to incite riots or sell child porn , there is limitations .
A better argument would be that local laws should not supersede state law and state law should not supersede federal law .
Having local and state laws apply to people never been in your state and to someone who has never mailed anything to your state is just retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's not an absolute right, you don't have the right to incite riots or sell child porn, there is limitations.
A better argument would be that local laws should not supersede state law and state law should not supersede federal law.
Having local and state laws apply to people never been in your state and to someone who has never mailed anything to your state is just retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083836</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1265025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.</i></p><p><i>A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, however, wrote that they "decline to follow the reasoning" of the California court.</i></p><p>You know this one is going to SCOTUS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit , however , wrote that they " decline to follow the reasoning " of the California court.You know this one is going to SCOTUS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, however, wrote that they "decline to follow the reasoning" of the California court.You know this one is going to SCOTUS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085792</id>
	<title>Re:Anything less than a Burka is obscene</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1265040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.</p></div><p>Was that satire? I mean... you still had any remaining respect left?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.Was that satire ?
I mean... you still had any remaining respect left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.Was that satire?
I mean... you still had any remaining respect left?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084494</id>
	<title>Re:Jehovah!</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1265032920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland"</p><p>Citation please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland " Citation please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland"Citation please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085394</id>
	<title>America is bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FACT.</p><p>We failed at being Free. Humans just dont like real freedom. We're too selfish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FACT.We failed at being Free .
Humans just dont like real freedom .
We 're too selfish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FACT.We failed at being Free.
Humans just dont like real freedom.
We're too selfish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085492</id>
	<title>Re:Entrapment??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.</p> </div><p>So it's basically one notch less illegal than planting drugs and weapons on innocent people the cops want to see put in jail.</p><p>Only difference is this material is perfectly legal, where as planted drugs typically are not.</p><p>Same old routine by the good ole boys</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it 's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal , and then blamed the supplier .
So it 's basically one notch less illegal than planting drugs and weapons on innocent people the cops want to see put in jail.Only difference is this material is perfectly legal , where as planted drugs typically are not.Same old routine by the good ole boys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
So it's basically one notch less illegal than planting drugs and weapons on innocent people the cops want to see put in jail.Only difference is this material is perfectly legal, where as planted drugs typically are not.Same old routine by the good ole boys
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086904</id>
	<title>Re:Entirely unreasonable</title>
	<author>justinjstark</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why every citizen of the U.S. needs to be aware of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Jury Nullification</a> [wikipedia.org].<blockquote><div><p>Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge&mdash;which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is&mdash;but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why every citizen of the U.S. needs to be aware of Jury Nullification [ wikipedia.org ] .Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge    which concerns what the law ( common or otherwise ) is    but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the " law " to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why every citizen of the U.S. needs to be aware of Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org].Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083738</id>
	<title>Jehovah!</title>
	<author>Dartz-IRL</author>
	<datestamp>1265024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland, but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.</p><p>How can people know what's legal/illegal in each and every bacwater community across a country as large as the US?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland , but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.How can people know what 's legal/illegal in each and every bacwater community across a country as large as the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland, but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.How can people know what's legal/illegal in each and every bacwater community across a country as large as the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087976</id>
	<title>What a wonderful start to a day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the smell of facepalm in the morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the smell of facepalm in the morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the smell of facepalm in the morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084516</id>
	<title>Re:Jehovah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland, but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.</i></p><p>"The bitch was a whore.  That's how she got pregnant, roped her cuckold Joseph into marrying her after the fact, and squeezing out the spawn of one of her "gang bang" parties to become leader of the world's most successful religious cult.</p><p>Had she been an upright woman, Jesus would have had a better upbringing, less of a troublemaker, and never founded the Christian cult.</p><p>Too bad they didn't stone the bitch."</p><p>--Anonymous</p><p>There, let's see the judges have a little fun with that quote (which does not reflect the views of this anonymous poster, though it does amuse her)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland , but not wherever the server for slashdot is located .
" The bitch was a whore .
That 's how she got pregnant , roped her cuckold Joseph into marrying her after the fact , and squeezing out the spawn of one of her " gang bang " parties to become leader of the world 's most successful religious cult.Had she been an upright woman , Jesus would have had a better upbringing , less of a troublemaker , and never founded the Christian cult.Too bad they did n't stone the bitch .
" --AnonymousThere , let 's see the judges have a little fun with that quote ( which does not reflect the views of this anonymous poster , though it does amuse her )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or how declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland, but not wherever the server for slashdot is located.
"The bitch was a whore.
That's how she got pregnant, roped her cuckold Joseph into marrying her after the fact, and squeezing out the spawn of one of her "gang bang" parties to become leader of the world's most successful religious cult.Had she been an upright woman, Jesus would have had a better upbringing, less of a troublemaker, and never founded the Christian cult.Too bad they didn't stone the bitch.
"--AnonymousThere, let's see the judges have a little fun with that quote (which does not reflect the views of this anonymous poster, though it does amuse her)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085192</id>
	<title>Simple Solution make a .XXX internet extension</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For years people have suggested that filtering of porn sights for adults only was a good thing.  So I remember in the early days of the web, people mentioned making an extension like the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, etc... to include<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions.  A<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx extension also would make it much easier for parents to filter content that they don't want their children to see.  If I remember correctly, I think I recall even the Porn industry wanting it's own extension.</p><p>This then allows those people in those communities to don't want content filtered to be able to then petition their local governments for changes in freedoms.</p><p>There are a lot of logistics that would need to be worked out to what should go into a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx section of the web, but that would allow the industry to have more openness as they want and parents to have the control they want.</p><p>Besides, since you can have access to the internet in the privacy of your own home, an you have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, wouldn't the obscenity laws in Tampa contradict that if obscene porn is your pursuit to happiness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For years people have suggested that filtering of porn sights for adults only was a good thing .
So I remember in the early days of the web , people mentioned making an extension like the .com , .org , .net , etc... to include .xxx which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions .
A .xxx extension also would make it much easier for parents to filter content that they do n't want their children to see .
If I remember correctly , I think I recall even the Porn industry wanting it 's own extension.This then allows those people in those communities to do n't want content filtered to be able to then petition their local governments for changes in freedoms.There are a lot of logistics that would need to be worked out to what should go into a .xxx section of the web , but that would allow the industry to have more openness as they want and parents to have the control they want.Besides , since you can have access to the internet in the privacy of your own home , an you have the right to Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness , would n't the obscenity laws in Tampa contradict that if obscene porn is your pursuit to happiness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years people have suggested that filtering of porn sights for adults only was a good thing.
So I remember in the early days of the web, people mentioned making an extension like the .com, .org, .net, etc... to include .xxx which would then allow communities whose law prohibit such materials to be sold in their community to be able to have their local IP providers block such web site extensions.
A .xxx extension also would make it much easier for parents to filter content that they don't want their children to see.
If I remember correctly, I think I recall even the Porn industry wanting it's own extension.This then allows those people in those communities to don't want content filtered to be able to then petition their local governments for changes in freedoms.There are a lot of logistics that would need to be worked out to what should go into a .xxx section of the web, but that would allow the industry to have more openness as they want and parents to have the control they want.Besides, since you can have access to the internet in the privacy of your own home, an you have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, wouldn't the obscenity laws in Tampa contradict that if obscene porn is your pursuit to happiness?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084946</id>
	<title>Geez.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider Glen Beck obscene.  Can I sue him for allowing his filth (aka his ideas) to be distributed to all media outlets?</p><p>I would seriously consider giving up porn if I could get Glen Beck taken off the air.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider Glen Beck obscene .
Can I sue him for allowing his filth ( aka his ideas ) to be distributed to all media outlets ? I would seriously consider giving up porn if I could get Glen Beck taken off the air .
; p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider Glen Beck obscene.
Can I sue him for allowing his filth (aka his ideas) to be distributed to all media outlets?I would seriously consider giving up porn if I could get Glen Beck taken off the air.
;p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084104</id>
	<title>Hey US court! (Or anyone else acting like that.)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265028540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think, you got any power at all to rule over the Internet? The Internet is outside of any nation. You got as much power over it as you got over Saturn or Middle-earth.</p><p>So go ahead, make your fantasy rulings, living in your fantasy world. Until you lose any connection to reality, and we&rsquo;re rid of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think , you got any power at all to rule over the Internet ?
The Internet is outside of any nation .
You got as much power over it as you got over Saturn or Middle-earth.So go ahead , make your fantasy rulings , living in your fantasy world .
Until you lose any connection to reality , and we    re rid of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think, you got any power at all to rule over the Internet?
The Internet is outside of any nation.
You got as much power over it as you got over Saturn or Middle-earth.So go ahead, make your fantasy rulings, living in your fantasy world.
Until you lose any connection to reality, and we’re rid of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087394</id>
	<title>article misleading: national standard can still ap</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1265047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 11th Circuit didn't reject a national standard. Rather, it said that the district court DID NOT ERR in applying the community standard, which comes from a 1973 SCOTUS case, Miller v. California.</p><p>There is a difference. What this means is that another district court, even in the 11th Circuit, could still use a national standard under similar circumstances. In other words, the 11th Circuit has ruled that such a call can currently be made by the trial court.</p><p>The area of the law is unclear, and courts have been applying it differently. While there has been some discussion of applying a national standard of decency by O'Connor, the Supreme Court as a whole has yet to rule this way. Until it does, Miller applies, and an interpretation of it that uses a community based standard is not an error.</p><p>Here's the actual opinion, this issue is discussed on pages 6-10: <a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf</a> [uscourts.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 11th Circuit did n't reject a national standard .
Rather , it said that the district court DID NOT ERR in applying the community standard , which comes from a 1973 SCOTUS case , Miller v. California.There is a difference .
What this means is that another district court , even in the 11th Circuit , could still use a national standard under similar circumstances .
In other words , the 11th Circuit has ruled that such a call can currently be made by the trial court.The area of the law is unclear , and courts have been applying it differently .
While there has been some discussion of applying a national standard of decency by O'Connor , the Supreme Court as a whole has yet to rule this way .
Until it does , Miller applies , and an interpretation of it that uses a community based standard is not an error.Here 's the actual opinion , this issue is discussed on pages 6-10 : http : //www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf [ uscourts.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 11th Circuit didn't reject a national standard.
Rather, it said that the district court DID NOT ERR in applying the community standard, which comes from a 1973 SCOTUS case, Miller v. California.There is a difference.
What this means is that another district court, even in the 11th Circuit, could still use a national standard under similar circumstances.
In other words, the 11th Circuit has ruled that such a call can currently be made by the trial court.The area of the law is unclear, and courts have been applying it differently.
While there has been some discussion of applying a national standard of decency by O'Connor, the Supreme Court as a whole has yet to rule this way.
Until it does, Miller applies, and an interpretation of it that uses a community based standard is not an error.Here's the actual opinion, this issue is discussed on pages 6-10: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf [uscourts.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31118712</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1265968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.</p><p>Seriously, <em>obscenity</em>? How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts? Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders. Check out those sexy ankles!</p></div><p>You're mocking it, but there are a LOT of people in the US who believe the 1950s USA was a much better time and had better values before the 60s and liberals fucked everything up. Depressing, and I still hold out hope that time passing will cause even more generational change and generational shifts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obscenity laws like this should n't even exist in this day and age.Seriously , obscenity ?
How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts ?
Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders .
Check out those sexy ankles ! You 're mocking it , but there are a LOT of people in the US who believe the 1950s USA was a much better time and had better values before the 60s and liberals fucked everything up .
Depressing , and I still hold out hope that time passing will cause even more generational change and generational shifts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.Seriously, obscenity?
How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts?
Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders.
Check out those sexy ankles!You're mocking it, but there are a LOT of people in the US who believe the 1950s USA was a much better time and had better values before the 60s and liberals fucked everything up.
Depressing, and I still hold out hope that time passing will cause even more generational change and generational shifts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704</id>
	<title>"The Community"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay. Time for this to be ruled by the scotus. They've been pretty clear on "community standards" and it's about time the internet was defined as "a community." SCOTUS did not say obscenity is defined by the most prudish members of the community. You can't simply pick the 13 most uptight pricks in town for your jury. It's time for people to be given full responsibility for the speech that is tolerated in their own homes and not the freedom to rule everyone else's homes based on the redneck perversions of that backward few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay .
Time for this to be ruled by the scotus .
They 've been pretty clear on " community standards " and it 's about time the internet was defined as " a community .
" SCOTUS did not say obscenity is defined by the most prudish members of the community .
You ca n't simply pick the 13 most uptight pricks in town for your jury .
It 's time for people to be given full responsibility for the speech that is tolerated in their own homes and not the freedom to rule everyone else 's homes based on the redneck perversions of that backward few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay.
Time for this to be ruled by the scotus.
They've been pretty clear on "community standards" and it's about time the internet was defined as "a community.
" SCOTUS did not say obscenity is defined by the most prudish members of the community.
You can't simply pick the 13 most uptight pricks in town for your jury.
It's time for people to be given full responsibility for the speech that is tolerated in their own homes and not the freedom to rule everyone else's homes based on the redneck perversions of that backward few.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084258</id>
	<title>No more Budweiser Super Bowl Ads?</title>
	<author>dirtydog</author>
	<datestamp>1265030520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this make it illegal for alcoholic beverage ads to be broadcast in dry counties?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this make it illegal for alcoholic beverage ads to be broadcast in dry counties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this make it illegal for alcoholic beverage ads to be broadcast in dry counties?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084912</id>
	<title>Curious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wanted to read the actual court opinion so I logged into PACER, the official web site of the US federal courts.  I was unable to find any opinion (or even any docketed case) for a Paul Little or Max Hardcore dealing with obscenity in ANY federal appeals court.
<p>Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to read the actual court opinion so I logged into PACER , the official web site of the US federal courts .
I was unable to find any opinion ( or even any docketed case ) for a Paul Little or Max Hardcore dealing with obscenity in ANY federal appeals court .
Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to read the actual court opinion so I logged into PACER, the official web site of the US federal courts.
I was unable to find any opinion (or even any docketed case) for a Paul Little or Max Hardcore dealing with obscenity in ANY federal appeals court.
Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083808</id>
	<title>I'm coming for you Walmart!!</title>
	<author>ZuchinniOne</author>
	<datestamp>1265025300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean I can sue Walmart for selling me shoes online that were made using slave-labor in the 3rd world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean I can sue Walmart for selling me shoes online that were made using slave-labor in the 3rd world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean I can sue Walmart for selling me shoes online that were made using slave-labor in the 3rd world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086254</id>
	<title>Its obvious theses laws our far outdated</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1265042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its obvious theses laws our far outdated, and not meant for electronic data as opposed to shipping physical media which A business owner has more control over. A businessman/women/other cant control who or where the electronic data goes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its obvious theses laws our far outdated , and not meant for electronic data as opposed to shipping physical media which A business owner has more control over .
A businessman/women/other cant control who or where the electronic data goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its obvious theses laws our far outdated, and not meant for electronic data as opposed to shipping physical media which A business owner has more control over.
A businessman/women/other cant control who or where the electronic data goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084248</id>
	<title>The Porn Chasers</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265030400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        There goes another huge waste of our tax dollars. Now that we have had an expensive witch hunt we get the thrill of paying huge money to lock these guys up for no reason at all.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And just why should the most conservative county get to hold power over all of us. How about letting the most l;iberal county declare when something is pornographic in nature?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And I live near the center of Florida and nothing at all is offensive to me porn wise. So these judges are not representing the people at all. They are catering to the lowest element of dried up dullards. Sometimes I understand the loonies who go off and gun down people at random. It's because of nonsense like this courts rulings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes another huge waste of our tax dollars .
Now that we have had an expensive witch hunt we get the thrill of paying huge money to lock these guys up for no reason at all .
                And just why should the most conservative county get to hold power over all of us .
How about letting the most l ; iberal county declare when something is pornographic in nature ?
                And I live near the center of Florida and nothing at all is offensive to me porn wise .
So these judges are not representing the people at all .
They are catering to the lowest element of dried up dullards .
Sometimes I understand the loonies who go off and gun down people at random .
It 's because of nonsense like this courts rulings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        There goes another huge waste of our tax dollars.
Now that we have had an expensive witch hunt we get the thrill of paying huge money to lock these guys up for no reason at all.
                And just why should the most conservative county get to hold power over all of us.
How about letting the most l;iberal county declare when something is pornographic in nature?
                And I live near the center of Florida and nothing at all is offensive to me porn wise.
So these judges are not representing the people at all.
They are catering to the lowest element of dried up dullards.
Sometimes I understand the loonies who go off and gun down people at random.
It's because of nonsense like this courts rulings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084534</id>
	<title>Great Precedent</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1265033280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The setting of this precedent means that any grouping of people can hold anything they find objectionable on the internet hostage. This means that Google can hold Microsoft Hostage, Microsoft can object to Apple's ads and bearded Linux ogres can object to Bill Gates taking a bath more than once a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The setting of this precedent means that any grouping of people can hold anything they find objectionable on the internet hostage .
This means that Google can hold Microsoft Hostage , Microsoft can object to Apple 's ads and bearded Linux ogres can object to Bill Gates taking a bath more than once a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The setting of this precedent means that any grouping of people can hold anything they find objectionable on the internet hostage.
This means that Google can hold Microsoft Hostage, Microsoft can object to Apple's ads and bearded Linux ogres can object to Bill Gates taking a bath more than once a month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083642</id>
	<title>Well, you're doomed...</title>
	<author>Adolf Hitroll</author>
	<datestamp>1265023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in the Land of The Free, corporations have a right to free speech so your constitution does not apply to you anymore, only to whom will financially benefit from that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in the Land of The Free , corporations have a right to free speech so your constitution does not apply to you anymore , only to whom will financially benefit from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in the Land of The Free, corporations have a right to free speech so your constitution does not apply to you anymore, only to whom will financially benefit from that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087448</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the judge doesn't understand the concept of jurisdiction OR democracy. Laws apply to people actually in a given jurisdiction. Now that he has decided we all effectively live in every jurisdiction, does that mean we all get to vote in all local elections? Democracy demands that the answer to that is yes. If I am to be subject to a body of law, then I have a right to elect the people who make those laws. Otherwise we're back to kings ruling from afar with no recourse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the judge does n't understand the concept of jurisdiction OR democracy .
Laws apply to people actually in a given jurisdiction .
Now that he has decided we all effectively live in every jurisdiction , does that mean we all get to vote in all local elections ?
Democracy demands that the answer to that is yes .
If I am to be subject to a body of law , then I have a right to elect the people who make those laws .
Otherwise we 're back to kings ruling from afar with no recourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the judge doesn't understand the concept of jurisdiction OR democracy.
Laws apply to people actually in a given jurisdiction.
Now that he has decided we all effectively live in every jurisdiction, does that mean we all get to vote in all local elections?
Democracy demands that the answer to that is yes.
If I am to be subject to a body of law, then I have a right to elect the people who make those laws.
Otherwise we're back to kings ruling from afar with no recourse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086902</id>
	<title>Re:Finally law is on our side!</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's go one better. Take a community of LGBT folks and have them state that heterosexual sex, including simulated sex, is obscene. Then go after Hulu for hosting shows like Grey's Anatomy, Nip/Tuck, and so forth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's go one better .
Take a community of LGBT folks and have them state that heterosexual sex , including simulated sex , is obscene .
Then go after Hulu for hosting shows like Grey 's Anatomy , Nip/Tuck , and so forth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's go one better.
Take a community of LGBT folks and have them state that heterosexual sex, including simulated sex, is obscene.
Then go after Hulu for hosting shows like Grey's Anatomy, Nip/Tuck, and so forth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086048</id>
	<title>Adult services in Vegas</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this standard I believe that the advertisement of adult services in Vegas are obscene. Considering that this is the basis of their latest ad campaign I trust that their tourism board will be duly sued by every other state in the union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this standard I believe that the advertisement of adult services in Vegas are obscene .
Considering that this is the basis of their latest ad campaign I trust that their tourism board will be duly sued by every other state in the union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this standard I believe that the advertisement of adult services in Vegas are obscene.
Considering that this is the basis of their latest ad campaign I trust that their tourism board will be duly sued by every other state in the union.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086010</id>
	<title>Bullish on Amish</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1265041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is great news for the Amish legal community. I expect lots of calls to Amish attorneys to try these kinds of cases by the standards of the average Amishman or Mennonite.</p><p>Of course, they'll have to get a computer first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great news for the Amish legal community .
I expect lots of calls to Amish attorneys to try these kinds of cases by the standards of the average Amishman or Mennonite.Of course , they 'll have to get a computer first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great news for the Amish legal community.
I expect lots of calls to Amish attorneys to try these kinds of cases by the standards of the average Amishman or Mennonite.Of course, they'll have to get a computer first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084944</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad to hear that Florida is taking the time to pursue this case - it means that despite training most of the 9/11 hijackers, Florida must have now eliminated ANY threat of terrorism, drug-running, illegal immigration and/or human trafficking in their state.</p><p>I mean, if there was any of *that* going on, they'd focus on it rather than piss away court time litigating over porn that's legal in 99\% of the US, right?</p><p>RIGHT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to hear that Florida is taking the time to pursue this case - it means that despite training most of the 9/11 hijackers , Florida must have now eliminated ANY threat of terrorism , drug-running , illegal immigration and/or human trafficking in their state.I mean , if there was any of * that * going on , they 'd focus on it rather than piss away court time litigating over porn that 's legal in 99 \ % of the US , right ? RIGHT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to hear that Florida is taking the time to pursue this case - it means that despite training most of the 9/11 hijackers, Florida must have now eliminated ANY threat of terrorism, drug-running, illegal immigration and/or human trafficking in their state.I mean, if there was any of *that* going on, they'd focus on it rather than piss away court time litigating over porn that's legal in 99\% of the US, right?RIGHT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084664</id>
	<title>I think I can now charge everyone with a crime</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1265034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely I can find a place where anything is illegal. How did these judges get into office again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely I can find a place where anything is illegal .
How did these judges get into office again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely I can find a place where anything is illegal.
How did these judges get into office again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087696</id>
	<title>I pay for this?</title>
	<author>X86Daddy</author>
	<datestamp>1265048700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a month or two, I do the little annual paperwork dance to confirm that the government stole the correct amount of money from me to deliver its "services."  I've been told that this is the "Land of the Free" and that there is "Liberty and Justice For All" and such...  Product not as advertised.  I'd like a full refund.  Seriously, if they can't live up to the founding document, and go out of their way to specifically violate this theoretical freedom from tyranny and blow as much money as possible on the stupidest shit (remember when they were selling Invade Iraq?  They even had this anthrax mailing scare that they linked to it... where'd that come from?)</p><p>The new guy in the Executive seat with a supermajority of his own party in congress got how much done?  He did a bit of copyright maximalism stuff that was sadly expected, and not a damn bit of the expected reversals of his predecessor's blunders.</p><p>I'm sick of it.  Is there a country that is not freezing all year that has this alleged "freedom" stuff?  A country where the taxes pay for first-world quality of life infrastructure (which is falling apart here, literally, see bridges), and where the taxes don't go mostly to diddling about with other countries for corporate interests and violating its own citizenry for theocratic interests?  Which country?</p><p>Am I pissed because I'm a huge fan of this guy's work?  Nope... seen some and it's humorous at best...  The problem is that there is not a damn thing about it that the federal government, nor a state government should be concerned with.  Fix our damn roads and STFU.</p><p>Sorry about the rant.  I just really hate that any fraction of a penny that I worked for goes into this sort of Evil... while so few fractions of those pennies go towards a damn thing that would improve quality of life around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a month or two , I do the little annual paperwork dance to confirm that the government stole the correct amount of money from me to deliver its " services .
" I 've been told that this is the " Land of the Free " and that there is " Liberty and Justice For All " and such... Product not as advertised .
I 'd like a full refund .
Seriously , if they ca n't live up to the founding document , and go out of their way to specifically violate this theoretical freedom from tyranny and blow as much money as possible on the stupidest shit ( remember when they were selling Invade Iraq ?
They even had this anthrax mailing scare that they linked to it... where 'd that come from ?
) The new guy in the Executive seat with a supermajority of his own party in congress got how much done ?
He did a bit of copyright maximalism stuff that was sadly expected , and not a damn bit of the expected reversals of his predecessor 's blunders.I 'm sick of it .
Is there a country that is not freezing all year that has this alleged " freedom " stuff ?
A country where the taxes pay for first-world quality of life infrastructure ( which is falling apart here , literally , see bridges ) , and where the taxes do n't go mostly to diddling about with other countries for corporate interests and violating its own citizenry for theocratic interests ?
Which country ? Am I pissed because I 'm a huge fan of this guy 's work ?
Nope... seen some and it 's humorous at best... The problem is that there is not a damn thing about it that the federal government , nor a state government should be concerned with .
Fix our damn roads and STFU.Sorry about the rant .
I just really hate that any fraction of a penny that I worked for goes into this sort of Evil... while so few fractions of those pennies go towards a damn thing that would improve quality of life around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a month or two, I do the little annual paperwork dance to confirm that the government stole the correct amount of money from me to deliver its "services.
"  I've been told that this is the "Land of the Free" and that there is "Liberty and Justice For All" and such...  Product not as advertised.
I'd like a full refund.
Seriously, if they can't live up to the founding document, and go out of their way to specifically violate this theoretical freedom from tyranny and blow as much money as possible on the stupidest shit (remember when they were selling Invade Iraq?
They even had this anthrax mailing scare that they linked to it... where'd that come from?
)The new guy in the Executive seat with a supermajority of his own party in congress got how much done?
He did a bit of copyright maximalism stuff that was sadly expected, and not a damn bit of the expected reversals of his predecessor's blunders.I'm sick of it.
Is there a country that is not freezing all year that has this alleged "freedom" stuff?
A country where the taxes pay for first-world quality of life infrastructure (which is falling apart here, literally, see bridges), and where the taxes don't go mostly to diddling about with other countries for corporate interests and violating its own citizenry for theocratic interests?
Which country?Am I pissed because I'm a huge fan of this guy's work?
Nope... seen some and it's humorous at best...  The problem is that there is not a damn thing about it that the federal government, nor a state government should be concerned with.
Fix our damn roads and STFU.Sorry about the rant.
I just really hate that any fraction of a penny that I worked for goes into this sort of Evil... while so few fractions of those pennies go towards a damn thing that would improve quality of life around here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085592</id>
	<title>it's called a "sting"</title>
	<author>ericbg05</author>
	<datestamp>1265039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Emphasis mine.<br>
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.</p><p>

If they had of not actively done this, then no crime would have been committed.<br>
(Of course IANAL etc).</p></div><p>My fianc&eacute;e IAL who wrote her thesis partially on this issue.  This was basically just a riff on a sting operation, which is obviously an extremely common technique for gathering evidence against various flavors of consensual crook (prostitutes, drug dealers, etc).  The courts will not reject the technique any time soon, and legislators will never write laws banning the technique because they would hate to seem soft on crime.</p><p>

Basically, consensual crimes are more expensive to prosecute because no involved party is interested in revealing information that could lead to a conviction.  The most effective ways cops and feds have come up with to do so is through intricate surveillance methods (wiretaps, inside informants) and sting ops.  The reasoning is that if a person commits a consensual crime with an undercover agent then the person would probably have committed the crime anyway.</p><p>


Of course, I believe it's stupid to criminalize most of the consensual crimes we hear about (drug dealing, prostitution, (adult) porn creation/consumption), but once you decide that it's illegal, you have to come up with a way to prosecute it.</p><p>

This leads to some pretty hilarious cop behaviors.  Fianc&eacute;e told me about a sting in which cops leave an old car parked unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighborhood with a bunch of audio recording equipment in the trunk.  The minute someone tries to take the car, a cop swings around the corner, arrests the guy and sends him off to jail for grand theft auto.</p><p>



So in one particular neighborhood they parked their sting car in front of a nice couple's house.  Couple <b>called the police multiple times</b> to report the apparently lost vehicle. But the cops didn't want to give away their little ploy, so they just ignored them.  After two weeks, the couple decides to go have a look at the car to see if there was an ID or something there.  The minute they open the door, the cops pull up from around the corner, arrest both of them, and charge them with attempted grand theft auto.</p><p>

So by "hilarious" I guess I meant "terrifying".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emphasis mine .
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it 's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal , and then blamed the supplier .
If they had of not actively done this , then no crime would have been committed .
( Of course IANAL etc ) .My fianc   e IAL who wrote her thesis partially on this issue .
This was basically just a riff on a sting operation , which is obviously an extremely common technique for gathering evidence against various flavors of consensual crook ( prostitutes , drug dealers , etc ) .
The courts will not reject the technique any time soon , and legislators will never write laws banning the technique because they would hate to seem soft on crime .
Basically , consensual crimes are more expensive to prosecute because no involved party is interested in revealing information that could lead to a conviction .
The most effective ways cops and feds have come up with to do so is through intricate surveillance methods ( wiretaps , inside informants ) and sting ops .
The reasoning is that if a person commits a consensual crime with an undercover agent then the person would probably have committed the crime anyway .
Of course , I believe it 's stupid to criminalize most of the consensual crimes we hear about ( drug dealing , prostitution , ( adult ) porn creation/consumption ) , but once you decide that it 's illegal , you have to come up with a way to prosecute it .
This leads to some pretty hilarious cop behaviors .
Fianc   e told me about a sting in which cops leave an old car parked unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighborhood with a bunch of audio recording equipment in the trunk .
The minute someone tries to take the car , a cop swings around the corner , arrests the guy and sends him off to jail for grand theft auto .
So in one particular neighborhood they parked their sting car in front of a nice couple 's house .
Couple called the police multiple times to report the apparently lost vehicle .
But the cops did n't want to give away their little ploy , so they just ignored them .
After two weeks , the couple decides to go have a look at the car to see if there was an ID or something there .
The minute they open the door , the cops pull up from around the corner , arrest both of them , and charge them with attempted grand theft auto .
So by " hilarious " I guess I meant " terrifying " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emphasis mine.
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
If they had of not actively done this, then no crime would have been committed.
(Of course IANAL etc).My fiancée IAL who wrote her thesis partially on this issue.
This was basically just a riff on a sting operation, which is obviously an extremely common technique for gathering evidence against various flavors of consensual crook (prostitutes, drug dealers, etc).
The courts will not reject the technique any time soon, and legislators will never write laws banning the technique because they would hate to seem soft on crime.
Basically, consensual crimes are more expensive to prosecute because no involved party is interested in revealing information that could lead to a conviction.
The most effective ways cops and feds have come up with to do so is through intricate surveillance methods (wiretaps, inside informants) and sting ops.
The reasoning is that if a person commits a consensual crime with an undercover agent then the person would probably have committed the crime anyway.
Of course, I believe it's stupid to criminalize most of the consensual crimes we hear about (drug dealing, prostitution, (adult) porn creation/consumption), but once you decide that it's illegal, you have to come up with a way to prosecute it.
This leads to some pretty hilarious cop behaviors.
Fiancée told me about a sting in which cops leave an old car parked unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighborhood with a bunch of audio recording equipment in the trunk.
The minute someone tries to take the car, a cop swings around the corner, arrests the guy and sends him off to jail for grand theft auto.
So in one particular neighborhood they parked their sting car in front of a nice couple's house.
Couple called the police multiple times to report the apparently lost vehicle.
But the cops didn't want to give away their little ploy, so they just ignored them.
After two weeks, the couple decides to go have a look at the car to see if there was an ID or something there.
The minute they open the door, the cops pull up from around the corner, arrest both of them, and charge them with attempted grand theft auto.
So by "hilarious" I guess I meant "terrifying".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</id>
	<title>Entrapment??</title>
	<author>kevingolding2001</author>
	<datestamp>1265024220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after <b>investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them</b> over the Internet.</p></div><p>Emphasis mine.
<br>
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
<br> <br>
If they had of not actively done this, then no crime would have been committed.
<br>
(Of course IANAL etc).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.Emphasis mine .
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it 's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal , and then blamed the supplier .
If they had of not actively done this , then no crime would have been committed .
( Of course IANAL etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.Emphasis mine.
So basically these investigators took something that was legal at it's source and imported it into an area where it was illegal, and then blamed the supplier.
If they had of not actively done this, then no crime would have been committed.
(Of course IANAL etc).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694</id>
	<title>Horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Appeals Court dropped the ball on this one. If a crime was committed in that backwoods locale, it should be the person who viewed the porn who is charged, because they're the ones who took the active step of bringing it 'into' the jurisdiction. Yeah, it's some pretty foul porn, by most standards, but it was the police who ordered the damn things and downloaded them, not some otherwise innocent person. Frankly, it's a mockery of the law to charge him with crimes in that jurisdiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Appeals Court dropped the ball on this one .
If a crime was committed in that backwoods locale , it should be the person who viewed the porn who is charged , because they 're the ones who took the active step of bringing it 'into ' the jurisdiction .
Yeah , it 's some pretty foul porn , by most standards , but it was the police who ordered the damn things and downloaded them , not some otherwise innocent person .
Frankly , it 's a mockery of the law to charge him with crimes in that jurisdiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Appeals Court dropped the ball on this one.
If a crime was committed in that backwoods locale, it should be the person who viewed the porn who is charged, because they're the ones who took the active step of bringing it 'into' the jurisdiction.
Yeah, it's some pretty foul porn, by most standards, but it was the police who ordered the damn things and downloaded them, not some otherwise innocent person.
Frankly, it's a mockery of the law to charge him with crimes in that jurisdiction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088774</id>
	<title>Re:Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  3) Said individuals are arrested, extradited to California, tried, convicted, sentenced, and begin their prison sentences.</p></div><p>Pat Robertson can breathe easy: we have no money and our jails are full.</p><p>I'd be in favor of releasing some violent offenders to make room for him though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) Said individuals are arrested , extradited to California , tried , convicted , sentenced , and begin their prison sentences.Pat Robertson can breathe easy : we have no money and our jails are full.I 'd be in favor of releasing some violent offenders to make room for him though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  3) Said individuals are arrested, extradited to California, tried, convicted, sentenced, and begin their prison sentences.Pat Robertson can breathe easy: we have no money and our jails are full.I'd be in favor of releasing some violent offenders to make room for him though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090092</id>
	<title>Re:"The Community"</title>
	<author>JeffAtl</author>
	<datestamp>1265015520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yay. Time for this to be ruled by the scotus</p></div><p>I hope not - the actions displayed in the videos are so repugnant to the general public that the SCOTUS would never over rule it.  Yeah, I know it shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does.

</p><p>That's why the ACLU is pretty selective when it comes to picking a test case to push to SCOTUS.  Law enforcement does the same thing.

</p><p>In the past, civil liberties groups have been able to create their own test case by getting an otherwise model citizen to engage in an "illegal" activity in full view of the police.  This prevented irrelevant but decision affecting peripheral issues like prior records, drugs on the scene, child porn, etc to muddy the water too much.

</p><p>Unfortunately, prosecutors have caught on and refused to take the bait.  Instead, they pick the most repugnant situation possible to push so that the SCOTUS will view the defendant as such a bad person that even unconstitutional punishment is ok.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay .
Time for this to be ruled by the scotusI hope not - the actions displayed in the videos are so repugnant to the general public that the SCOTUS would never over rule it .
Yeah , I know it should n't matter but unfortunately it does .
That 's why the ACLU is pretty selective when it comes to picking a test case to push to SCOTUS .
Law enforcement does the same thing .
In the past , civil liberties groups have been able to create their own test case by getting an otherwise model citizen to engage in an " illegal " activity in full view of the police .
This prevented irrelevant but decision affecting peripheral issues like prior records , drugs on the scene , child porn , etc to muddy the water too much .
Unfortunately , prosecutors have caught on and refused to take the bait .
Instead , they pick the most repugnant situation possible to push so that the SCOTUS will view the defendant as such a bad person that even unconstitutional punishment is ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay.
Time for this to be ruled by the scotusI hope not - the actions displayed in the videos are so repugnant to the general public that the SCOTUS would never over rule it.
Yeah, I know it shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does.
That's why the ACLU is pretty selective when it comes to picking a test case to push to SCOTUS.
Law enforcement does the same thing.
In the past, civil liberties groups have been able to create their own test case by getting an otherwise model citizen to engage in an "illegal" activity in full view of the police.
This prevented irrelevant but decision affecting peripheral issues like prior records, drugs on the scene, child porn, etc to muddy the water too much.
Unfortunately, prosecutors have caught on and refused to take the bait.
Instead, they pick the most repugnant situation possible to push so that the SCOTUS will view the defendant as such a bad person that even unconstitutional punishment is ok.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085892</id>
	<title>Appeal</title>
	<author>YesDinosaursDidExist</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be appealed for sure -</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be appealed for sure -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be appealed for sure -</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086108</id>
	<title>Re:Entrapment??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pure entrapment, plain and simple...</p><p>I'm sure the site even says that some of the content may be illegal where you live, and not to open or view it if you live in those areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pure entrapment , plain and simple...I 'm sure the site even says that some of the content may be illegal where you live , and not to open or view it if you live in those areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pure entrapment, plain and simple...I'm sure the site even says that some of the content may be illegal where you live, and not to open or view it if you live in those areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090154</id>
	<title>But he is doing business in Tampa</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1265016000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually there's a complication here not made clear in the summary nor highlighted in TFA. </p><blockquote><div><p>Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>By shipping goods he is exporting, the seller reaches out and does business in Tampa. Mailing the goods is an act of the seller appointing the carrier as his agent for the purpose of making goods available in Tampa.  </p><p>The internet download OTOH is usually seen as the goods being made available on the server and the buyer importing from there.</p><p>A careful reading of the TFA, it does not disclose whether the internet download or physical supply is a factor here, it only says "materials sold over the Internet" (and then repeated instances of "the materials"). It does note that "the sentence had to be limited to the <b>defendants' activities in the district</b>" (my emphasis), which could be interpreted to support my theory.</p><p>My attempt at brevity makes me sound quite certain, but actually it's my vague recollection from accountancy studies - where the focus is more on spotting potential complications to raise with a lawyer rather than on being able to make legal advice, but the message about being very careful where you do business was a strong one. Secondly, my studies were based on Scottish law. It's just logical though, following the principle that goods lost in shipping make the seller liable to replace the goods.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there 's a complication here not made clear in the summary nor highlighted in TFA .
Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.By shipping goods he is exporting , the seller reaches out and does business in Tampa .
Mailing the goods is an act of the seller appointing the carrier as his agent for the purpose of making goods available in Tampa .
The internet download OTOH is usually seen as the goods being made available on the server and the buyer importing from there.A careful reading of the TFA , it does not disclose whether the internet download or physical supply is a factor here , it only says " materials sold over the Internet " ( and then repeated instances of " the materials " ) .
It does note that " the sentence had to be limited to the defendants ' activities in the district " ( my emphasis ) , which could be interpreted to support my theory.My attempt at brevity makes me sound quite certain , but actually it 's my vague recollection from accountancy studies - where the focus is more on spotting potential complications to raise with a lawyer rather than on being able to make legal advice , but the message about being very careful where you do business was a strong one .
Secondly , my studies were based on Scottish law .
It 's just logical though , following the principle that goods lost in shipping make the seller liable to replace the goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there's a complication here not made clear in the summary nor highlighted in TFA.
Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.By shipping goods he is exporting, the seller reaches out and does business in Tampa.
Mailing the goods is an act of the seller appointing the carrier as his agent for the purpose of making goods available in Tampa.
The internet download OTOH is usually seen as the goods being made available on the server and the buyer importing from there.A careful reading of the TFA, it does not disclose whether the internet download or physical supply is a factor here, it only says "materials sold over the Internet" (and then repeated instances of "the materials").
It does note that "the sentence had to be limited to the defendants' activities in the district" (my emphasis), which could be interpreted to support my theory.My attempt at brevity makes me sound quite certain, but actually it's my vague recollection from accountancy studies - where the focus is more on spotting potential complications to raise with a lawyer rather than on being able to make legal advice, but the message about being very careful where you do business was a strong one.
Secondly, my studies were based on Scottish law.
It's just logical though, following the principle that goods lost in shipping make the seller liable to replace the goods.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090208</id>
	<title>Re:Curious</title>
	<author>srvivn21</author>
	<datestamp>1265016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wanted to read the actual court opinion so I logged into PACER, the official web site of the US federal courts.  I was unable to find any opinion (or even any docketed case) for a Paul Little or Max Hardcore dealing with obscenity in ANY federal appeals court.</p><p>Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion?</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf" title="uscourts.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf</a> [uscourts.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to read the actual court opinion so I logged into PACER , the official web site of the US federal courts .
I was unable to find any opinion ( or even any docketed case ) for a Paul Little or Max Hardcore dealing with obscenity in ANY federal appeals court.Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion ?
http : //www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf [ uscourts.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to read the actual court opinion so I logged into PACER, the official web site of the US federal courts.
I was unable to find any opinion (or even any docketed case) for a Paul Little or Max Hardcore dealing with obscenity in ANY federal appeals court.Does anyone have the docket number or a copy of the opinion?
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf [uscourts.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084368</id>
	<title>That's why we have a supreme court</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1265031840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084336</id>
	<title>Re:"The Community"</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1265031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. The "internet" should be declared as a specific place (like an embassy is actually "foreign soil")
<br> <br>
Then, there could be a separate community standard just for the internet.
<br> <br>
One of the problems with establishing a realistic community standard is that most people don't want to go on record and say they watch lots of pr0n, or buy sex toys; so the community standard comes out artificially low.
<br> <br>
According to a CNBC report on adult entertaiment, there's:
<br> <br>
    * $3,075 is spent on it<br>
    * More than 28,000 Internet users are viewing it<br>
    * 372 Internet users are using search engines to find it<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...that's <b>every SECOND</b>
<br> <br>
So <b>somebody</b> is buying it!
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/31586577?slide=2" title="cnbc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnbc.com/id/31586577?slide=2</a> [cnbc.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The " internet " should be declared as a specific place ( like an embassy is actually " foreign soil " ) Then , there could be a separate community standard just for the internet .
One of the problems with establishing a realistic community standard is that most people do n't want to go on record and say they watch lots of pr0n , or buy sex toys ; so the community standard comes out artificially low .
According to a CNBC report on adult entertaiment , there 's : * $ 3,075 is spent on it * More than 28,000 Internet users are viewing it * 372 Internet users are using search engines to find it ...that 's every SECOND So somebody is buying it !
http : //www.cnbc.com/id/31586577 ? slide = 2 [ cnbc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The "internet" should be declared as a specific place (like an embassy is actually "foreign soil")
 
Then, there could be a separate community standard just for the internet.
One of the problems with establishing a realistic community standard is that most people don't want to go on record and say they watch lots of pr0n, or buy sex toys; so the community standard comes out artificially low.
According to a CNBC report on adult entertaiment, there's:
 
    * $3,075 is spent on it
    * More than 28,000 Internet users are viewing it
    * 372 Internet users are using search engines to find it ...that's every SECOND
 
So somebody is buying it!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31586577?slide=2 [cnbc.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088698</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1265052660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I fear! That the Supreme Court will change this from a regional clusterfuck into a national clusterfuck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I fear !
That the Supreme Court will change this from a regional clusterfuck into a national clusterfuck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I fear!
That the Supreme Court will change this from a regional clusterfuck into a national clusterfuck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084722</id>
	<title>Re:Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech?</title>
	<author>Professional Slacker</author>
	<datestamp>1265034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Up the ante.<br>
<br>
Change step one to:<br>
 1) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring judicial decisions that infringe upon free speech are obscene.<br>
<br>
Have them arrest the judges, let them testify: they'll either have to admit guilt, or do a 180 on their own ruling. I very much doubt they will do the former, and the latter should provide sound legal reason as to why the original ruling was incorrect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Up the ante .
Change step one to : 1 ) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism ( Berkeley , perhaps , or another community with similar values ) passes a city ordinance declaring judicial decisions that infringe upon free speech are obscene .
Have them arrest the judges , let them testify : they 'll either have to admit guilt , or do a 180 on their own ruling .
I very much doubt they will do the former , and the latter should provide sound legal reason as to why the original ruling was incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up the ante.
Change step one to:
 1) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring judicial decisions that infringe upon free speech are obscene.
Have them arrest the judges, let them testify: they'll either have to admit guilt, or do a 180 on their own ruling.
I very much doubt they will do the former, and the latter should provide sound legal reason as to why the original ruling was incorrect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084026</id>
	<title>Re:Horseshit</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265027760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Presumably there's a jurisdiction somewhere where it's illegal for police to perform that sort of entrapment, or where downloading (and thus creating a copy) is a strict liability offence with no get-out for law enforcement.  Clap them in irons, says I, and transport them there to answer for their foul crimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably there 's a jurisdiction somewhere where it 's illegal for police to perform that sort of entrapment , or where downloading ( and thus creating a copy ) is a strict liability offence with no get-out for law enforcement .
Clap them in irons , says I , and transport them there to answer for their foul crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably there's a jurisdiction somewhere where it's illegal for police to perform that sort of entrapment, or where downloading (and thus creating a copy) is a strict liability offence with no get-out for law enforcement.
Clap them in irons, says I, and transport them there to answer for their foul crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084210</id>
	<title>How about Internet Community Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why judge based on silly "geographical" community when we already have perfectly good online communities by which to judge what is obscene or not.
So I guess the best judges of that is 4chan.   We can go by the standard:

"If it is too obscene for 4chan, it is too obscene"

And solve this whole silly "obscenity" issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why judge based on silly " geographical " community when we already have perfectly good online communities by which to judge what is obscene or not .
So I guess the best judges of that is 4chan .
We can go by the standard : " If it is too obscene for 4chan , it is too obscene " And solve this whole silly " obscenity " issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why judge based on silly "geographical" community when we already have perfectly good online communities by which to judge what is obscene or not.
So I guess the best judges of that is 4chan.
We can go by the standard:

"If it is too obscene for 4chan, it is too obscene"

And solve this whole silly "obscenity" issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085988</id>
	<title>The good part . . .</title>
	<author>pushf popf</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The good part is that this means that it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws the lower decision out on the grounds of being "unbelievably stupid"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The good part is that this means that it 's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws the lower decision out on the grounds of being " unbelievably stupid "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good part is that this means that it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws the lower decision out on the grounds of being "unbelievably stupid"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083748</id>
	<title>Holy shit, don the Burkas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least the Amish don't use computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the Amish do n't use computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the Amish don't use computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086778</id>
	<title>Which community...</title>
	<author>Viceroy Potatohead</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is the strictest, though?<br> <br>

I've read radical feminists who would view pretty much any diamond, alcohol, or shampoo commercial I've ever seen as obscenity.  Hell, there's an article online (ICBATG) about the Firefly episode "Mrs. Reynolds" by some wingnut (Allecto, IIRC), which talks about it portraying homoeroticism, advocating misogyny, and showing sexual slavery positively/jokingly.  I'm quite sure she'd find Firefly obscene.<br> <br>

The problem (well one of them) is that the 'strictest community' is inevitably going to be radical to some degree, and not representative of the larger community.  That's pretty much tautological.  They'll be a group more interested in changing the mores of society than in actually addressing the individual instance of a crime.<br> <br>

For the fun of it:<br>
One of my favourite Bradbury lines: <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=jO6CAhp2UcwC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=the+bones+of+glinda+the+good+ray+bradbury&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=8O5wGguk7K&amp;sig=cQs71C1Wy63NeOe7KUiiEcuHP-Q&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=KtRyS62TFZP2NbOPjPcJ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" title="google.ca">in Usher II from the Martian Chronicles</a> [google.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the strictest , though ?
I 've read radical feminists who would view pretty much any diamond , alcohol , or shampoo commercial I 've ever seen as obscenity .
Hell , there 's an article online ( ICBATG ) about the Firefly episode " Mrs. Reynolds " by some wingnut ( Allecto , IIRC ) , which talks about it portraying homoeroticism , advocating misogyny , and showing sexual slavery positively/jokingly .
I 'm quite sure she 'd find Firefly obscene .
The problem ( well one of them ) is that the 'strictest community ' is inevitably going to be radical to some degree , and not representative of the larger community .
That 's pretty much tautological .
They 'll be a group more interested in changing the mores of society than in actually addressing the individual instance of a crime .
For the fun of it : One of my favourite Bradbury lines : in Usher II from the Martian Chronicles [ google.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the strictest, though?
I've read radical feminists who would view pretty much any diamond, alcohol, or shampoo commercial I've ever seen as obscenity.
Hell, there's an article online (ICBATG) about the Firefly episode "Mrs. Reynolds" by some wingnut (Allecto, IIRC), which talks about it portraying homoeroticism, advocating misogyny, and showing sexual slavery positively/jokingly.
I'm quite sure she'd find Firefly obscene.
The problem (well one of them) is that the 'strictest community' is inevitably going to be radical to some degree, and not representative of the larger community.
That's pretty much tautological.
They'll be a group more interested in changing the mores of society than in actually addressing the individual instance of a crime.
For the fun of it:
One of my favourite Bradbury lines: in Usher II from the Martian Chronicles [google.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086186</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say Supreme Court? Sure you can....</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1265042100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This ruling is actually not the "Great Evil" it's being portrayed as.</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course it is.  For instance, there's probably at least one Wahabbian community somewhere in the US; that means any pictures of unveiled women may be prosecuted as obscene according to the reasoning of the 11th circuit.  That's pretty damned evil.</p><p>The fact that the 9th circuit (and also the 3rd, I think) have ruled otherwise means the decision is more likely to be overturned than it would be otherwise, but it's still evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling is actually not the " Great Evil " it 's being portrayed as.Of course it is .
For instance , there 's probably at least one Wahabbian community somewhere in the US ; that means any pictures of unveiled women may be prosecuted as obscene according to the reasoning of the 11th circuit .
That 's pretty damned evil.The fact that the 9th circuit ( and also the 3rd , I think ) have ruled otherwise means the decision is more likely to be overturned than it would be otherwise , but it 's still evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ruling is actually not the "Great Evil" it's being portrayed as.Of course it is.
For instance, there's probably at least one Wahabbian community somewhere in the US; that means any pictures of unveiled women may be prosecuted as obscene according to the reasoning of the 11th circuit.
That's pretty damned evil.The fact that the 9th circuit (and also the 3rd, I think) have ruled otherwise means the decision is more likely to be overturned than it would be otherwise, but it's still evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084588</id>
	<title>The number one best seller is pornography</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should apply to the Bible - The Song of Songs and everywhere it is fornication and incest is mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should apply to the Bible - The Song of Songs and everywhere it is fornication and incest is mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should apply to the Bible - The Song of Songs and everywhere it is fornication and incest is mentioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085590</id>
	<title>Re:Entirely unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable. It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country. I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.</p></div><p>It would be interesting to see a lawsuit filed against Tampa for unconstitutionally disenfranchising citizens of the United States who are subject to its laws. If the laws of Tampa can be applied against any person regardless of where they are in the United States, then it should follow that every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections in Tampa, and the city government must send election material and provide for absentee voting to all eligible voters, and maintain current and accurate voter registration rolls.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken , but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable .
It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country .
I really hope that this precedent is changed , either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.It would be interesting to see a lawsuit filed against Tampa for unconstitutionally disenfranchising citizens of the United States who are subject to its laws .
If the laws of Tampa can be applied against any person regardless of where they are in the United States , then it should follow that every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections in Tampa , and the city government must send election material and provide for absentee voting to all eligible voters , and maintain current and accurate voter registration rolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know whether the ruling is wrong with regard to the law or whether the law is horribly broken, but rulings like this are entirely unreasonable.
It goes against the principles of the US to allow a small group of people to inflict their personal views and opinions on the entire country.
I really hope that this precedent is changed, either by a successful appeal to the supreme court or better laws.It would be interesting to see a lawsuit filed against Tampa for unconstitutionally disenfranchising citizens of the United States who are subject to its laws.
If the laws of Tampa can be applied against any person regardless of where they are in the United States, then it should follow that every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections in Tampa, and the city government must send election material and provide for absentee voting to all eligible voters, and maintain current and accurate voter registration rolls.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084364</id>
	<title>Re:Entrapment??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably ordered it for their own enjoyment and when they got caught with it by their fat psychopathic wives said, "no, I only boughtit because I was going to sue them for indecency, that's it!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably ordered it for their own enjoyment and when they got caught with it by their fat psychopathic wives said , " no , I only boughtit because I was going to sue them for indecency , that 's it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably ordered it for their own enjoyment and when they got caught with it by their fat psychopathic wives said, "no, I only boughtit because I was going to sue them for indecency, that's it!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114</id>
	<title>Does this apply to ALL "obscene" speech?</title>
	<author>Rone</author>
	<datestamp>1265028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder if the 11th would have been so quick to insist that the strictest local community standards apply in every case if non-pornographic material was involved.  Hypothetical case in point:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1)  Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring particularly inflammatory anti-abortion speech as "obscene", "inciting to riot", etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2)  Arrest warrants are immediately issued throughout the south-eastern US for various high profile clergymen (e.g. Pat Robertson), and other pro-life firebrands as various pieces of inflammatory pro-life literature (e.g. videotapes) are purchased and received by members of the local police.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3)  Said individuals are arrested, extradited to California, tried, convicted, sentenced, and begin their prison sentences.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 4)  During this time, they appeal their sentences through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.</p><p>If the members of the 11th Court suddenly "switched team jerseys" and were sitting on the bench of the 9th Circuit court, would they uphold these convictions?</p><p>Using the reasoning they applied against Mr. Little (the defendant), they would.  However, if you believe that these same judges would actually choose to follow this reasoning, I have a nice bridge to sell you.</p><p>Normally, I would expect that the Supreme Court would (eventually) backhand the 11th for such an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment, but given the recent much-broader-than-necessary ruling on campaign finance reform, I suspect that they'll find a way not to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder if the 11th would have been so quick to insist that the strictest local community standards apply in every case if non-pornographic material was involved .
Hypothetical case in point :     1 ) Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism ( Berkeley , perhaps , or another community with similar values ) passes a city ordinance declaring particularly inflammatory anti-abortion speech as " obscene " , " inciting to riot " , etc .
    2 ) Arrest warrants are immediately issued throughout the south-eastern US for various high profile clergymen ( e.g .
Pat Robertson ) , and other pro-life firebrands as various pieces of inflammatory pro-life literature ( e.g .
videotapes ) are purchased and received by members of the local police .
    3 ) Said individuals are arrested , extradited to California , tried , convicted , sentenced , and begin their prison sentences .
    4 ) During this time , they appeal their sentences through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.If the members of the 11th Court suddenly " switched team jerseys " and were sitting on the bench of the 9th Circuit court , would they uphold these convictions ? Using the reasoning they applied against Mr. Little ( the defendant ) , they would .
However , if you believe that these same judges would actually choose to follow this reasoning , I have a nice bridge to sell you.Normally , I would expect that the Supreme Court would ( eventually ) backhand the 11th for such an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment , but given the recent much-broader-than-necessary ruling on campaign finance reform , I suspect that they 'll find a way not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder if the 11th would have been so quick to insist that the strictest local community standards apply in every case if non-pornographic material was involved.
Hypothetical case in point:
    1)  Some particularly radical bastion of liberalism / progressivism (Berkeley, perhaps, or another community with similar values) passes a city ordinance declaring particularly inflammatory anti-abortion speech as "obscene", "inciting to riot", etc.
    2)  Arrest warrants are immediately issued throughout the south-eastern US for various high profile clergymen (e.g.
Pat Robertson), and other pro-life firebrands as various pieces of inflammatory pro-life literature (e.g.
videotapes) are purchased and received by members of the local police.
    3)  Said individuals are arrested, extradited to California, tried, convicted, sentenced, and begin their prison sentences.
    4)  During this time, they appeal their sentences through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.If the members of the 11th Court suddenly "switched team jerseys" and were sitting on the bench of the 9th Circuit court, would they uphold these convictions?Using the reasoning they applied against Mr. Little (the defendant), they would.
However, if you believe that these same judges would actually choose to follow this reasoning, I have a nice bridge to sell you.Normally, I would expect that the Supreme Court would (eventually) backhand the 11th for such an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment, but given the recent much-broader-than-necessary ruling on campaign finance reform, I suspect that they'll find a way not to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084390</id>
	<title>Re:Entrapment??</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265032080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like buying some weed in the Netherlands, smuggling it into Germany and then claiming the Dutch coffee shop broke the law.</p><p>(only using weed here because I couldn't think of a car analogy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like buying some weed in the Netherlands , smuggling it into Germany and then claiming the Dutch coffee shop broke the law .
( only using weed here because I could n't think of a car analogy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like buying some weed in the Netherlands, smuggling it into Germany and then claiming the Dutch coffee shop broke the law.
(only using weed here because I couldn't think of a car analogy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31118712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0140245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31089604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31090208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31087880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31086564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31085394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0140245.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31118712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31083836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31088698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0140245.31084930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
