preview

Obscenity Law In The Bjorn, Hands Up !

Good Essays
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: 1. Whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a…show more content…
KKKops are killing us every day!” In addition, she had also had posted a picture with the status that depicted a police vehicle with its emergency lights on (however no officer is visible), and a computer generated image of a gun pointed in the air. Because of this, Ms. Banks was reported to the authorities and was arrested. In addition to arresting Ms. Banks, law enforcement searched her house and found materials often used for bomb creation, a ski mask, and two shotguns and a rifle. So the question remains—did Ms. Banks’s website post incite violence, and, is it protected by the First Amendment. The simple answers are no, her post did not incite violence and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. A clear case for the defense of Ms. Banks is made in the landmark 1969 Supreme Court Case, Brandenburg v. Ohio. In this case, a test to establish incitement laws was created by the Warren court in a Per curiam decision. The decision created a three-pronged test, which is as follows: 1. Is the act direct
Get Access