‘I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.’ (P. Stewart, US Supreme Court’) Justice Potter Stewart’s remarks in the Jacobellis Vs. Ohio Supreme Court case are infamous in both American law and pop culture. Since the inception of the first amendment, American law has excluded the use of profanity or obscene content from protected free speech. However, as Justice Stewart stated, courts and lawmakers have routinely struggled to outline what constitutes obscenities…… This struggle is largely in part to the fluid dynamic of morality in society. Until the early 20th century United State courts referenced the Hicklin Test when attempting to define obscene material. This test originated from the 1868 English Court case Regina Vs.
Rough draft segregation was a terribly unfair law that lasted about a hundred years in the United States. A group of high school students who struggled for better educational conditions were a big factor in ending segregation in the United States. Even though going on strike for better conditions may have negative impacts, African Americans were not treated equally in education because of segregation and the Jim Crow laws were so unfair and the black schools were in terrible condition compared to the whites’. In 1896 the Plessy v. Ferguson case made the segregation of blacks and whites legal; and the Supreme Court made the Jim Crow laws legal, saying that blacks are “separate but equal.” African Americans knew that was unfair and could especially see it in the schools.
There is so much that can be learned from the past. Especially from an event that was as catastrophic as this one. How does one person gain such a grip on so many people? How was he able to influence them to change their entire life’s to conform to what he wanted. Somehow he was able to get them to move to a completely new place and create a world all their (his) own. How does one person convince and force so many people that it was time for their life to end? How does he force them to kill themselves? So many questions that are still being answered to this day. There are plenty of movies and research done on this event but there is still a lot to learn.
Since pornography is speech, it is protected by the First Amendment. One of the biggest obstacles the courts have is the struggle to find a middle ground between the opponents of obscenity and defenders of free speech. Since pornography is considered free speech, some view it as telling the hearers what women are worth, it ranks women as things, as objects or as prey. (http://lucian.uchicago.edu/workshops/wittgenstein/files/2008/01/langton-
Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment.
The following is an adjusted version of an argument I presented in Critical Thinking last semester. My opinion has not changed, just expanded.. :)
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
When deliberating over whether access to pornography should be prohibited, four areas of contention must be elaborated upon and evaluated critically to provide a sensible basis on which a judgement can be made. Firstly, it must be concluded whether pornography can be classed as a form of speech, and whether it enjoys the same protections as art and literature under the principle. Secondly, works such as those of Catherine MacKinnon can be drawn upon to offer a feminist perspective of the effects of pornography on the treatment of women within modern democratic society. Moreover, the principles of Devlin and Feinberg offer relevant acumen regarding the criminalisation of pornographic media. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst access to pornography should not be entirely prohibited; publications that depict ‘extreme’ situations should be subject to regulation and restriction.
Illinois, the constitutional position on obscene material has not changed. The Miller Test, with the revised third prong has remained unaltered and obscenity prosecutions have continued in steady decline from 1990. The dispute and definition of obscenity still persist but with the lack of Supreme Court attention to such matters it development is unlikely. Perhaps the law of obscenity ought to be reexamined and defined to create a more constructive standard. Or, just as feasibly, it could be considered that a unanimous, objective standard is unattainable as Justice Stevens stated in his dissent “De gustibus non est disputandum. Just as there is no arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about
Women, in general, have been defined by their challenge to proclaim self-sovereignty concerning their sexual organs and every step forward only served to limit the group in a different way. In colonial America, women were discredited because they were perceived as the antagonist and initiator when lewd men unlawfully raped them. This misconception was instigated by Justice Lumpkin who claimed that a woman will never “upon the occasion of her first carnal contact with a man, will readily submit to the intercourse without some reluctance and some show of resistance” (Freedman, 2013, p. 47). This ruling essentially eliminated their sexual-sovereignty because it meant that, under the jurisdiction of the government, females always agree to having
“I cannot define pornography,” United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said, “but I do know it when I see it” ("I Know It When I See It.").
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
Child pornography may be difficult to identify. In the 1960’s, Supreme Court Justice Stewart coined the phrase “I know it when I see it”, a legal phrase which is actually still used today. Although, this statement was in reference to obscene material in an adult pornography case, Jacobeellis v. Ohio, Justice Stewart explained that not all issues can be definitively defined, but there are some issues that do not require a specific definition in order to know what actions the law should be taking (Gillespie, 2010). The Internet poses great challenges to the law because of global involvement. Communication and distribution across boarders has made it impossible for a consistent definition of child pornography, which creates a weak foundation in combating this heinous crime. Gillespie addresses identifying factors that define what child pornography i...
In order to narrow down the focus of my research, this paper will briefly discuss what is considered obscene and the different ways in which obscenity will manifest itself. Obscenity law aims at punishment for thoughts provoked or preventing the formation of certain thoughts, typically, erotic ones in the minds of willing viewers but not for overt acts, nor for antisocial conduct.
In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.