Possession of Obscene Material and Infringement on Civil Liberties

1342 Words3 Pages

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Obscene is defined as “disgusting to the senses, repulsive”. California law defines obscene matter as “taken as a whole, that the average person applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interested, that taken as a whole depicts, or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and that taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. Obscenity refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media. The objectionable material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security. The Bill of Rights, “First Amendment Prohibits Congress from establishing religion and restricting it free exercise; also prohibits Congress from abridging freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition. So does the First Amendment cover obscenity? The Supreme Court says No, it has declined to grant First Amendment protection to utterances and writings that are obscene or defamatory. Justice Potter Stewart expressed the difficulty in his famous utterance “I shall not today attempt to further define obscenity, but I know it when I see it”. The Judicial system used the Miller test, a test that uses three questions to define obscenity. Question 1-does the average person applying contemporary, community standards, believe that the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeal to a prurient interest? Question 2-Is the material potently offensive? Question 3-Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? Under FCC rules and Fede... ... middle of paper ... ... has put zoning laws, for clubs that have nude-dancing. Personal possession of obscene material in ones’ home may not be prohibited by law. Writing for court in case Stanley vs. Georgia Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote “if the First Amendment means anything it means that the state has no business telling a man sitting in his home what books he may read or what films he may watch”. With regards to the law of obscene, the only thing I would change is to take it out of law. However, I would leave in and stricken the parts regarding child pornography and child images shown in a sexual way. That is the only part of obscenity law I would leave in. But if PC 311 is truly put in the books to protect children then obvious it is necessary and fine by me. However, I believe it’s a way to put limitations on civil liberty, making it unconditional and wrong to human rights.

More about Possession of Obscene Material and Infringement on Civil Liberties

Open Document