I could argue for at least three pages that a picture of Scalia sodomizing his wife is political commentary rather than obscenity as long as the genitalia don't show and there is no frontal nudity of the wife.
And I would agree with you 100%. That actually bears out my point. I would only want someone to be punished for posting something obscene if they really did post something obscene. If its a grey area then I think the discretion of the jury should not be questioned. But what of my second example. The image just shows Scalia looking at shocked at the law students question. But for whatever reason the jury decided that was inappropriately obscene, just because it mentioned sodomy. Not only would, in my opinion, the member be unfairly punished for something that clearly did not violate the by-law she was accused of violating, even worse, it would set a precedent for future conduct, since it would be unfair to punish one member for something but not punish another for equivalent conduct.
It comes down to an issue of trusting the membership, and the juries in particular, to do their job as best they can. When one becomes a member of B77, one accepts the charter and its articles as they (will) stand...including the possibility that one's idea of obscene isn't the same as the rest of the board's, say. If people can't live with that, they don't belong in a member-moderated board, they belong in a true anarchy.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. I have seen too many juries make decisions that are simply so far out of line with the relevant law (no matter how well they are instructed by the judge) to just blindly accept that whatever interpretation a randomly selected jury has of a by-law is going to automatically have to be accepted by the membership, no matter how far it is from what the membership as a whole believes.
So why not change ¶4 and say that there will be two hearings any time a member does not like the first decision?
As I said before, if it is a question of credibility or another issue of disputed fact, the jury's decision should stand. To have a second panel reconsider those kind of issues would lead to the anarchy that Ax warns of.