In 2013 Ira Isaacs was officially imprisoned for violating federal obscenity statutes in the state of California. He produced and distributed four of his fetish films via U.S mail. Three sub areas collectively create the core components in the analysis of this case: obscenity, fetishes and related cases with similar circumstances and outcomes.
Obscene speech is the only type of speech that does not need a compelling government interest and is not protected by the First Amendment. This type of speech is not allowed in the courts because it protects “a social interest in order and morality” (2012, Zachary). After a court case in 1973 Miller v. California, there were three different standards that were outlined to define obscenity. The case
…show more content…
One of the films included a 2 hour video of a female engaging in sexual activities involving human bodily waste and another featured a film in which a female performed in sexual acts with animals. The films were believed to have crossed the line into obscenity.
One of the major facets of the USA vs. Ira Isaacs case includes the topic of sexual fetishes. Sexual fetishism is sexual arousal centered on something non-living or not a part of human genitalia. Sexual fetishes can include feet, rubber/latex, fur, hair, shoes, even balloons and muscle worship and the more bizarre diaper and bodily functions.
Initially, the term fetish meant an object that had supernatural powers or an object made by man that held powers over others --such as voodoo dolls, Crucifixes, talismans, amulets, and statues of gods and goddesses. It is said that a French psychologist by the name of Alfred Binet introduced the concept of the sexual fetish in 1887. At that time it was seen as being mentally disturbed and should be treated. In 1912 Richard Von Krafft-Ebing extended the definition to also include body
…show more content…
Bestiality is the act of having sex with an animal, while scatophilia is the act of having sex involving human defecation. The history of bestiality goes as far back as prehistory and it has been written about by ancient authors involving Greek mythology. It is said that humans were engaged in sexual activity with goats and sows as representations of their Egyptian gods and goddesses. Sexual activity with animals has long been illegal in many societies. According to Jewish and Christian doctrine, bestiality is punishable by death. In the modern era, bestiality is mostly illegal is punished under animal cruelty laws, since non-humans cannot give consent. The rise of the zoophile community is working to have these laws
According to the Webster-dictionary The First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Since the first Amendment was written by our founding fathers and is part of our constitution it should never be violated. Being able to say and express what one thinks without been afraid of going to jail. In the essays “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby and “Let’s Put Pornography back in the closet” by Susan Brownmiller both writes about the First Amendment is when one can express them. Jacoby and Brownmiller both write about pornography and the first amendment using pathos and ethos in their writing. However, Jacoby’s essay is more reliable because she uses ethos to provide credible resources, as well as use pathos to appeal to her credibility.
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.
In Pro Domme, we find the offer includes the possibility of fetish service providers to the public that members of the fetish. BDSM providers, mistress, bondage, humiliation and
Pornography Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The United States. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 27-52.
What is the First Amendment? According to the “Webster-dictionary” The First Amendment is “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech.” Since the First Amendment was written by our founding fathers and is part of the constitution it should not be violated. This amendment secures the freedom of individuals to express their thoughts freely. In the essays “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby and “Let’s Put Pornography back in the closet” by Susan Brownmiller both authors write about the First Amendment. By implementing ethos and pathos in their writing both authors write about pornography
Psychotherapists have grappled with the concept of sexual sadism and masochism for decades. In his early writings, Freud (1924) described sadomasochistic (SM) practice as a means of attaining pleasure through the administration or attainment of pain. He acknowledged that SM behavior contradicted his theories on human instincts and the pleasure principle, and ultimately attributed the behavior to the interaction of flawed aggressive instincts, unconscious Oedipal guilt, and the enigmatic death drive. His initial perspectives on SM behavior eventually informed our field’s current perspectives of SM as a form of psychopathology. To date, some researchers study SM sexual practices through a psychopathological framework that characterizes SM identity as a type of abnormal sexuality. Meanwhile other psychotherapists view the practice as linked to complicated object relations, narcissism, affect regulation, and various neurotic responses (The Clinical Problem of Masochism, 2012).
To sufficiently take a side in the ever-growing debate of pornography, one must first define the concept around which this discourse surrounds itself. A working definition for pornography is a piece of material that has the object purpose of arousing erotic feelings. Radical feminists, however, strictly define it as “the act of sexual subordination of women” (Dworkin 1986).
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).
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Downs 7).
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
Sexual objectification refers to the way in which a person sexually reduces another by treating them as a mere sex object (Halwani). Sexual objectification is rarely referred to as a benign topic, though throughout this evaluation, an enlightened, thou broad range of opinions are discussed emphasising the ambiguity of the term in relation to the morality of sexual objectification. Halwani’s definition only embraces ‘treatment’ and or the ‘behavioural’ aspects of sexual objectification, nevertheless Halwani recognises that the process by which someone is sexually objectified occurs most frequently throughout the following scenarios: During casual sex, as the parties desire nothing more than the others body party, essentially their sexual parts. When we look at naked pictures of people and become intrigued by their sexual aspects. Engaging in pornography, as the material already objectifies it’s actors as models (Halwani). Perving on a person’s bodily features such a “her booty” as he or she walks by. Catcalling, by reducing the person solely to their physical appearances and lastly, fantasising about someone, as it objectifies them solely on their physical appearances and can in turn symbolise men or women holistically (Halwani, 2010, pp 186). Allowing for a broader discussion in relation to when sexual objectification is morally permissible (if ever), idea’s constructed by Immanuel Kant, Martha Nussbaum and David Soble are broadly evaluated in order to construct when sexual objectification is permissible.
Film scholar and gender theorist Linda Williams begins her article “Film Bodies: Genre, Gender and Excess,” with an anecdote about a dispute between herself and her son, regarding what is considered “gross,” (727) in films. It is this anecdote that invites her readers to understand the motivations and implications of films that fall under the category of “body” genre, namely, horror films, melodramas, (henceforth referred to as “weepies”) and pornography. Williams explains that, in regards to excess, the constant attempts at “determining where to draw the line,” (727) has inspired her and other theorists alike to question the inspirations, motivations, and implications of these “body genre” films. After her own research and consideration, Williams explains that she believes there is “value in thinking about the form, function, and system of seemingly gratuitous excesses in these three genres,” (728) and she will attempt to prove that these films are excessive on purpose, in order to inspire a collective physical effect on the audience that cannot be experienced when watching other genres.
There are many different types of fetishes out in the world today. According to the book, “Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices”, written by Anil Aggrawal, there are about five hundred-forty-seven terms describing paraphilic sexual interests. Anil Aggrawal describes Sexual Fetishism as, “Reliance on some non-living objects as a stimulus for sexual arousal and sexual gratification” (15). A fetish can be both physical as well as a mental aspect of sexuality Just to name a few fetishes and their definitions:
The term “fetishism” first came to light in 1887. Psychologist Alfred Binet first presented the terminology to explain those that feel sexually attracted to inanimate objects. As the years passed, other psychologists such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Sigmund Freud made adjustments to the word until it encompassed all overwhelming urges to use an object or part of the body that is normally considered nonsexual to reach sexual fulfillment. (Sexual Fetishism, 2003, Metacalf, Luke, Nationmaster.com) Until the time of the sexual revolution, fetishes where thought of as abnormal or deviant behaviors and mental illnesses. However, in more recent years the more acceptable “paraphilia” has been used to label those who have peculiar sexual desires. (Crooks & Baur, (2013). Our Sexuality (12 Edition) Page 488)
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.