Understanding obscenity is more complex than one thinks because there multiple definitions to obscenity. Obscenity is a complex theme in the Supreme Court due to its cases. The theme of obscenity can also apply to other parts other than the Supreme Court. This paper will focus on my reflection on obscenity in regard to what I learned, original and new thoughts about obscenity, type of obscene expression I now find less dangerous than before and ways my changed perception has changed the way I think about watching the news. I learned two important cases and tests involved with obscenity. One case was Roth v United States (1957) because this case shows that materials relating to obscenity was not part of the protection of the First Amendment …show more content…
As a result from this case, a new test was put in place (Miller Test) that replaced the old test known as Roth (“Obscenity”). The Miller Test in some sense expanded the Roth Test because similarities can be found in both tests. There are three parts to the Miller Test and those three parts are, is it acceptable to modern community standards as a whole, does it violate the state law in any way and does it lack elements that are not associated with obscenity (“Obscenity”). An example of similarity between both test would be the use of community standards. The Miller Test is currently being used in the Courts because no other test was formed after Miller (“Obscenity”). Understanding the past situations with obscenity, helped me understand obscenity …show more content…
Obscenity is not just pornography or taboo but also anything that is consider obscene behavior, language and images. An example of obscene behavior would be peeping because a person is looking through another person’s window or watching them from a distance to get aroused. Obscene language is using words such as “pussy” because it is offensive towards women. Images that are obscene would be visualizations that show sex and genitals and is not for any other purpose. By doing the reflection assignments, I have a better understanding on
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).
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 1978 a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of language. This broadcast took place on a mid-afternoon weekday. Immediately before the broadcast the station announced a disclaimer telling listeners that the program would include "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some."(Gunther, 1991) Pacifica believed that this was enough warning to give people who would be offended, but placing a warning in front of something is like placing chocolate cake in front of a fat guy. Humans thirst for the unknown, and at this time, sexual perversion was a big unknown.
Pornography refers to sexual materials designed to arouse sexual desire of viewers/readers. The provisions of the First Amendment prohibit the government from abridging the freedom of speech (Hafen 210). Despite the provisions, the US Supreme Court interprets the constitution to identify the limits and boundaries inherent in the First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the First Amendment does not protect two types of pornography: child pornography and obscenity (Hafen 210). The First Amendment protects all other pornographic materials not falling in these two categories, but only for adult viewers.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
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:
“Sex offending is a somewhat unique crime, as it directly deals with one of society’s most taboo topics-sex and sexuality” ( Zilney & Zilney, 2009, p. iii).
Seven Works Cited Have you ever walked into a music store and seen those parental advisory stickers on most of todays' popular music? Or have you seen those TV ratings on the top left corner of your favorite shows? How about the ratings on your favorite video games? I'm sure you have, but do you really know what those so-called harmless stickers, and images do to the world of entertainment and your freedom of expression for that matter? A recent craze to promote "family values" in the U.S. has caused censorship panels to go entirely too far with the censorship of the entertainment industry including television, radio, the Internet, and even authors.
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.
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).
When deliberating over whether access to pornography should be prohibited, four areas of contention must be elaborated upon and evaluated critically to provide a sensible basis on which a judgement can be made. Firstly, it must be concluded whether pornography can be classed as a form of speech, and whether it enjoys the same protections as art and literature under the principle. Secondly, works such as those of Catherine MacKinnon can be drawn upon to offer a feminist perspective of the effects of pornography on the treatment of women within modern democratic society. Moreover, the principles of Devlin and Feinberg offer relevant acumen regarding the criminalisation of pornographic media. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst access to pornography should not be entirely prohibited; publications that depict ‘extreme’ situations should be subject to regulation and restriction.
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
Definition of obscenity: the state or quality of being obscene; obscene behavior, language, or images.
The movies they watch, the music they listen to, and the games they play have all first been screened through different rating systems to find anything in them that can be interpreted as “obscene”. Once someone finds something, the creator of the work has no choice but to delete, edit, and basically censor the offending portion, otherwise it never gets to see the light of public consumption. Censorship has been used for all different kinds of work, for all different kinds of reasons. The many examples of album covers provided at TabooTunes show different types of covers deemed “inappropriate”, and how drastically the artists had to alter the image in order to make it “friendlier” and “more appropriate” (“Taboo Tunes Gallery - Music Censorship").... ...
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.