Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Paraphilia disorder case study
Paraphilias and sexual variants
Paraphilias
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Paraphilia disorder case study
Summary of the Case On August 1987, Donald Butler opened a store in Winnipeg, Manitoba, called the “Avenue Boutique”. In this store, Butler sold and rented pornographic publications that were considered “hard core” and sexual paraphernalia. A couple weeks later, the City of Winnipeg Police searched and seized Butler’s sexually explicit materials lawfully. From this, Butler was charged with 173 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code. These charges included s. 163(1)(a) which criminalizes the distribution and the possession for distribution of obscene materials, as wells s. 163(2)(a) for selling and exposing obscene material to the public. In October of 1987, Butler was charged an additional 77 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code, on the grounds that he reopened his store and was caught again disturbing, selling and exposing obscene materials to the public. In order to be charged under s. 163 of the criminal code, the materials sold, …show more content…
According to s. 163 of the criminal code obscenity is the “undue exposition of sex or sex that includes crime, horror, cruelty and violence”. In the trial court, the judge concluded that by interpreting s. 163 and its definition of obscenity, it violated our s. 2(b) right of freedom of expression guaranteed in Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial judge believed that we must hold the Charter paramount if any law contradicts it, and this doesn’t necessarily mean we have to strike down the contradicting law. Therefore Butler was acquitted of his 242 counts under s. 163 of the criminal code. In regards to the remaining 8 charges, they were related to 8 films, which contained material that was legitimately prescribed under s.1 of the Charter (the justification for the violation in the Charter was demonstrably justifiable). Therefore he was convicted on those 8 counts
Matthew went to the school's hearing officer for a review of the disciplinary action. The examiner determined that the speech fell within the ordinary meaning of "obscene," as used in the disruptive-conduct rule, and affirmed the discipline in its entirety. Fraser served two days of his suspension, and was allowed to return to school on the third day.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
This was a man who at the time was in the position of being elected associate justice of the Supreme Court. Anita Hill, who had worked for him as his personal assistant testified about these comments made by Clarence Thomas, "pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess (Smolowe)". This. Is. Not. Harmless. Garvis clearly did not take Hill 's words seriously and gave her own two cents about it, "Maybe he talked dirty to Anita Hill. Maybe He didn’t. Something obviously went on between the two of them that was sexually charged". What we are doing now is brushing off this man 's actions because a woman 's opinion is not valued enough because the attention was unwanted so there was no so called "sexual
In the Bjorn, MN case of restricting “Animal Attractions” from selling the video, Hands Up!, the cities obscenity law directly violates the United States constitution, and the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. In the past, the Supreme Court of the United States had written that sexual materials could be deemed obscene if they were found to be "utterly without redeeming social importance" (Roth v. United States, Alberts v. California). This broad restriction, however, received numerous additions in the 1973 case, Miller v. California. In this case, the court established a three-prong test, which is as follows:
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word “obscene” as follows. Relating to sex in an indecent or offensive way. In the statement Robertson said I do not believe he uses indecent or offensive language. Robertson expressed his feelings towards the subject in an appropriate manner. I did not find his statement offensive towards anyone because he does not specifically call anyone or any group of people out. Phil Robertson has been quoted saying "It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical,” This statement falls under the protection of the first amendment because the freedom of speech protects an individual’s opinion. The freedom of speech does not protect obscene comments and in my opinion I do not find this statement as obscene or offensive. I do not find this statement offensive because everyone has their own desires and should not be influenced by someone else’s opinion. This statement falls under the protection of the first amendment and that is why A&E overturned Phil Robertson’s suspension and removed his
I fully agree with the District Court and the First Circuit Court on the ruling for the school district against Jason, a high school student that wrote a facebook post during school hours and on school campus that included vulgar and offensive words towards his fellow classmates in which he named in the post. When first looking at this case you can either apply the Supreme Court precedent set in the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser or Tinker vs. Des Moines. If we apply the Fraser test to Jason’s speech his speech would have not been protected. According to Fraser schools may prohibit speech that “materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser majority at page 2. Jason did in fact use offensive speech when talking about the other students in his post, the names he called them and the profanity in the speech would reasonably be seen as offensive and vulgar. Though if applying this case to the Fraser test Jason’s speech would not be protected, in this case I decided to apply his speech to the test set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines.
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?
Downs, Donald A. The New Politics of Pornography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Print.
According to, “Murder on a Sunday Morning”, Brenton Butler was accused of a murder of Mary Ann Stephens. During the trial, there has been some moral and corrupt evidence to prove whether this “suspect” was guilty or not. Many logical pieces of evidence were provided during the trial such as, photographs of the clothing that was worn by Mr. Butler to observe whether Mr. Stephens could identify it – and proving that Mr. Butler was accused because of his race. There has been biased argumentation during this trial such as identifying racial profiling (African-American), another eye-witness name Mr. Stevens discovered a bag of Mary Ann Stephens near the garbage, been accused by the police for “taking the gun” out of bag – but failed to fingerprint
In the United States of America, our justice system is here to serve and protect people of the world. Unfortunately, some are able get away with crimes and others are fairly judged. This often happens because their is nothing proving a clear path of innocence or guilt. In the book Monster and the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning, this can be demonstrated throughout. Based on the information given, the verdict of Steve Harmon seems to be incorrect while the verdict of Brenton Butler seems to be correct.
Leis, C.L. (2001). United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. – Sexually Explicit Signal Bleed and §505 of the CDA: Unable to Overcome Strict Scrutiny but Will Strict Scrutiny be Able to Overcome the Future?. Unpublished manuscript, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from https://culsnet.law.capital.edu/LawReview/BackIssues/30-4/Leis.pdf
When looking at the legal history of this case, we see many cases that have had similar situations. Looking at R v. Butler where Chief Justice Sopinka stated, “The case requires the Court to address one of the most difficult and controversial of contemporary issues, that of determining whether, and to what extent, Parliament may legitimately criminalize obscenity.” The R v Butler case is similar to the Sharpe case as it deals with what could be classified as obscenity and at that time obscenity also included child pornography. (Court of Appeal for British Columbia, 1999) Sopinka spoke about s.163 (1)(b) having a very weird aspect, it made possession of materials which promoted or advocated a certain
In a case similar to Fraser, a student was sent home twice for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt with a three-faced Jesus on the back. The t-shirt also referenced biblical statements that were deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment. The court found that the school had the right to impose action for words or phrases that were considered vulgar and offensive. Just as with the Fraser case, the ethical significance is that students do not have the right to wear articles of clothing that depict messages or images in an offensive, public manner.
· The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically def...