Are pornographic sites really pornographic sites?!

According to reports, as of November 30, the National public security organs cracked the use of Internet video chat and other criminal cases of pornography, 90, arrested 221 suspects, all over the territory to outlaw obscene pornographic sites 598, the legal abolition of obscene pornographic site domain name 35. Through spot checks, the closure of the suspected provision of illegal and bad services on the website column and channel 17, delete suspected pornography-related pictures of more than 2000. Such reports in the current "rectification" campaign is not uncommon, pornographic sites naturally aroused people's anger and crusade, which is commonplace, the logical thing, but I can not help but question, what is the meaning of pornographic sites? What are the criteria for closing a pornographic site? After all, in the rule of law today, a country ruled by law is not the government and department officials to decide , should be the rule of law, should not be the nature of the fight against the management, such as "crackdown" and so on, but should be implemented to the specific legal system, including a small definition of the concept, otherwise, it seems to have violated private property, after all, the State protection of private property is written into the

It is the stone of the mountain that can attack jade. Let's take a look at the extraterritorial experience first. Nowadays, the most developed nature of Internet legislation in the world is the United States, and its definition of pornography and obscenity is also quite time-consuming.

The United States is a country with case law tradition, and its legislation on the sanction of obscene and pornographic articles is mostly case law, that is, the judicial criterion established by the trial of the case. It is noteworthy that the United States to sanction the judicial norms of obscene materials is not immutable, but there is a longer historical evolution process. This can be divided into the following three phases:

In the "Hicklin" period, in 1873, when the Supreme Court was asked to explain the legal implications of obscenity in the postal code passed in the year, the Gao Yuan hastily borrowed "Hicklin guidelines" from the UK.

This jurisprudence declares that if a work is likely to lead to the risk of corruption and corruption in the reader, it is obscene. In applying this rule, the United States Court found that the entire work was obscene as long as one part of a book, script, magazine, or other work was obscene.

The judicial principle, which was extremely onerous and widely used for about 75 years, made the trial of obscenity and pornography fairly easy in the 20th century 20, 30 and 40, and the success of the administration of justice made the official inspectors aggressive in removing "indecent" and "obscene". Thus met with many objections. In 1957, the United States Supreme Court officially declared the "Hicklin code" unconstitutional because it allowed only adults to read things that were only suitable for children ("Butler to Michigan" case).

The "Roth-Memoris" period, in 1957, had a landmark "Roth to the United States" case. Roth was convicted by the District Court of a federal act on obscenity because of the sale of "disgusting material", and the Court of Appeal determined its guilt. But Roth appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court supported the conviction of Roth by a 5:4 majority.

Later in the Miller case, the Chief Justice clarified a test method that was still in use on obscenity, namely three test methods: 1. " For ordinary people, the use of the same era of social standards, whether it will be considered the main temptation of the thing, as a whole, is lustful interest. 2. The depiction or description of the thing in a manifestly aggressive manner conforms to the sexual act specifically defined by the state law; 3. In general, whether the thing lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

In the process of defining obscenity, the United States Supreme Court has developed a second category of adult data: "Indecent material" (indecent material), where indecent material is protected by the First Amendment, while obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.

Of course, there is no international department law to adjust the transmission and reception of obscene materials, there is no universal definition and standard for obscene materials, nor can the laws of one country be forcibly added to another country.

Back home, we do not have an accurate definition of obscenity and standards, usually judged with greater subjectivity and randomness, but also increased arbitrariness, and even fell into the "say you are, you are" the circle, which is precisely the concept of the rule of law and our contrary. As US Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart said in a dissenting opinion: "Surveillance reflects a lack of confidence in society." This is the characteristic of authoritarianism. A book that is worthless to me may be of some value to my neighbour. In the free society that the Constitution gives us, each of us has to make choices for ourselves. "There is no doubt that the supervision of the site is particularly necessary, but the degree and standard also need to grasp, not across." The site is closed, but the forced closure of the site also involves user privacy, website property rights and many other issues, a close is not a long-term solution. We also need the relevant laws and regulations of the sound and perfect, especially the emerging network law field. Perhaps in the real world, or in the virtual world, we have a long way to go, I hope we are already on the road.