Obscene and indecent both mean the immoral portraying, description, and behaviour of sexual matters which are found offensive and disgusting. Both the Community Standards of Tolerance Test and the Harm test are used to determine the “obscene” and “indecent”. I will argue that the Harm Test is better than the Community Standards of Tolerance Test for determining the “obscene” and “indecent”. Firstly, the Harm Test outlines types of harm that might be caused to people’s health who take part in “obscene” and “indecent” actions. Secondly, the Harm Test allows society a more determinate way to detail what counts as an “indecent” and “obscene” act.
The Community Standards of Tolerance Test was replaced by the Harm Test by the Court’s decisions in the R. v. Butler case.(Labaye , 2005, p. 337). I will explain this test and why it is not a good test to use for determining the “obscene” and “indecent”. The Community Standards of Tolerance Test is a test in which the community determines what they would tolerate and what they will not tolerate, in this case the “obscene” and the “indecent”. For example, there are different kinds of people in a community with different opinions and morals. What might be “obscene” and “indecent” for some people might not be for other people if we adhere to CTS. This creates a problem because there will be tensions between the opinions and morals of the community and it would be very hard to prove what is “obscene” and “indecent” since everyone holds different views and opinions of the matter.
In this section I will talk about the Harm Test and why it is better than the Community Standards of Tolerance Test for determining the “obscene” and “indecent”. The Harm Test is a test that determines typ...
... middle of paper ...
...evident. The third type of harm is physically or psychologically harming persons involved in the conduct and I clearly argued throughout my paper how the third type of harm harms persons involved in the conduct both physically and psychologically.(Labaye, 2005, p. 341). Moreover, she mentions that catching a sexually transmitted disease might be a danger but it must be discounted because it is unrelated to indecency.(Labaye, 2005, p. 341). I disagree because there is psychological and physical harm done to the members who take part in “obscene” and “indecent” actions.
It is evident throughout my essay that the Harm Test is easier than the Community Standards of Tolerance Test to prove the “obscene” and “indecent”. Therefore, I have argued that the Harm Test is better than the Community Standards of Tolerance Test for determining the “obscene” and” indecent”.
In 1973, Marvin Miller, operator of one of the West Coast's largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit material, had conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, which was known as “adult material”. He was found guilty based on the fact that he violated California’s pena...
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.
Chief Justice Warren Burger set three rules that are helpful in determining whether a material is pornographic or not. First, it is important to determine whether the material appeals to the prurient interest if an average person applies contemporary community standards to that materia (Barmore 475)l. Second, determine whether the material describes or depict sexual content, in a patently offensive manner (Barmore 476). Finally, determine whether the entire work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Hafen 210). These three tests can help one determine whether a
Pornography Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The United States. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 27-52.
As a society, we are confronted daily with pornographic images, they feature in our newspapers, on our film screens, and even in our novels. This voyeuristic obsession the media holds has for a long time been desensitizing us to depictions of violence and sex, but has it also disabled us in being able to see the difference between what is carefully constructed satire and what is merely pornography?
The committee makes several recommendations in regards to changing the laws and legislations surrounding the incrimination of homosexuals for what had previously been considered sodomy. The basic premise being that “homosexual behaviour betwe...
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
This could relate as well to how sexual acts are perceived. Notice the common theme of deviance throughout the two excerpts. As described before, Alfred Kinsey, a well-regarded sex researcher of the 20th century, researched the borders between normalcy and deviance, noting that deviance is a societal construct that was used to control sexuality. Researcher Gayle Rubin even constructed a sex hierarchy, a charmed circle consisting of good, normal and natural sexuality versus that of what is seen as deviant, bad, unnatural and damned, naming things such as BDSM, homosexuality, and non-marital sex and so on. Though, it can be argued that these hierarchies aren’t obscene in any means but rather dependent on the individual to label as they see such.
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).
According to Rubin’s model, “good” sexual acts include heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, in private, and vanilla. Characteristics of “bad” sexual acts include homosexual, non-procreative, pornographic, and sadomasochistic. Only sex acts that are on the “good” side of the line are aligned with morality. This model assumes the domino theory of sexual peril, which is the belief that “the line between “good” and “bad” sex stand between sexual order and chaos” (Rubin 14). If certain aspects of “bad” sex are allowed to cross the erotic barrier, then other “reprehensible” acts would follow and chaos would ensue. The domino theory of sexual peril and this notion that some sex are moral while others are immoral further adds into the discourse of oppressive powers. “It grants virtue to the dominant groups, and relegates vice to the underprivileged” (15). This means that institutions of powers could be scapegoating sexual deviances as the problem while ignoring the real issues of society. One example of this was the anti-porn movement during the late 1970s. S/M porn was especially criticized because it is thought that
· The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically def...
We have already noted some of the harmful effects of pornography and violence, and we can conclude that the common good has indeed been harmed and continues to be harmed where such materials are produced, exhibited and distributed without responsible restriction or regulation.
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
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.
To some, pornography is nothing more than a few pictures of scantily clad Women in seductive poses. But pornography has become much more than just Photographs of nude women. Computer technology is providing child molesters and child pornographers with powerful new tools for victimizing children. Pornography as "the sexually explicit depiction of persons, in words or images, Sexual arousal on the part of the consumer of such materials. No one can prove those films with graphic sex or violence has a harmful effect on viewers. But there seems to be little doubt that films do have some effect on society and that all of us live with such effects.