Copyright Statement:

This web site is © 1998-2001 to Crescendo Communications. Reproduction for any purposes other than linking to this site and journalistic review is prohibited unless written consent has been obtained from the author

For this copyright, 'site' comprises all of the web pages contained on this domain (macrophile.com) that do not contain a tilde (~) as the first character in their directory listing in their URL. All such pages proceeded by a tilde (~) are individual user directories and belong to their respective user. All user copyrights supersede this statement.

Images and artwork contained within this site are referenced whenever possible. Otherwise:

  • Some artwork, imagery, and stories are © 1998-2006, Dr. Samuel Conway.
  • Some stories, and all web and CGI work is © 1998-2006, Crescendo Communications
  • The Macrophile logo is ® 1998, Kenneth Sample.

CDA Commentary:

In Reno v ACLU the Communications Decency Act was unanimously declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court:

As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.

This site and it's art and information is a knowledge clearing house for it's intended and adult audience. I cannot control who visits this site. IP addresses do not denote age. With this notice and similar notices I am noting the adult orientation of this site. It should be obvious by it's content.

Legalities concerning this site:

The United States of America is the country within which this web site is served and for which jurisdiction falls.

The United States Supreme Court, the authority of all federal, state, county, parish, city and town laws enacted in this nation, established it's current definition of obscenity in the case of Miller v. California

Miller v. California defined a three-part test:

  • That an "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find the work, taken as a whole, appealing to the prurient interest.
  • The work, taken as a whole, must be "Patently offensive."
  • The work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

All three parts must be met for a work to be ruled obscene and outside of constitutional protection.

A portion of the stories and images in this web site may be offensive to some people. However they may appeal, when considering the internet community for which they are intended they are not so.

This web site contains content that matches its "contemporary community standards"

The information contained in this site is intended to informative. It does not make sense that a site, designed to enlighten and inform, could be considered "patently offensive."

Additionally artists and writers have put a great deal into their work that appears here. They have put their artistic talent to use in creating this work. Hence, this is art of significant value in their eyes. In some cases portions of their livelihood are based upon it's sale and appeal to its intended audience. This is an artistically based offering.

As a whole this site does contain "serious literary, artistic, ... or scientific value."

Considering that this site meets none of the parts of this test, it is legally not obscene.

Offensive and obscene are legally very different. While this site may offend you, it is Constitutionally protected speech. You are not required to view it.

A note concerning Minors:

In Ginsberg v. New York tighter standards for minors were upheld, with works of artistic intents excluded from regulation. While I stand behind the reasoning that artists created and art is contained within this site, I do not feel that this site is designed for or is appropriate for minors.

When possible attempts shall be made to mark sections as inappropriate for minors and to notify various minor-protection software makers that this site should not be viewed by said.

And concerning parental responsibility...

For a word on parental responsibility, Lori Fena, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

What [Reno v. ACLU] means is that the responsibility for controlling our content lies on us -- the citizens and the parents -- and this is a call for all of us once again to demonstrate how we can trusted to use this medium responsibly."

I have done my part. Please do yours.

Usage of this site is goverend by the AUP
© 1997-2017, Crescendo Communications
Last generated 2011-04-12 20:52:33
<bennie @ macrophile.com>
Welcome Guest!