When an indecent or obscene act takes place being tolerant to it doesn’t exactly mean you are not being put at risk with these acts. The Community Tolerance Test (CSTT) is designed to look at what the society can tolerant compared to what they do or do not prefer. The Harm-based Test is made to charge any act of indecency that is harmful or has any risk of harm towards an individual or society. This is why between the CSTT and the Harm Test, It is best to use the Harm Test when determining the obscene and the indecent acts in Canada as it looks more towards the safety of individuals and society in general. Harm-based Tests look more in depth of the different kinds of harm that is indecent to society, it makes sure nobody is wrongfully accused of being harmful, and lastly it is much more efficient and reasonable compared to the tolerance test. There are different types of indecency or obscene acts that can really affect society altogether. Being intolerant to an act doesn’t necessarily mean it is harmful to you or society. The Harm Test makes sure that not only are you tolerant with this act but you are out of harm’s way if any kind of indecent or obscene act were to take place. The Harm Test states three different types of harm that can support a finding of indecency: “1. Confronting members of the public with conduct that significantly interferes with their autonomy and liberty, 2. predispose others to anti-social behaviour, 3. physically or psychologically harming persons involved in the conduct” (339) As you can see the Harm Test goes into much depth when looking at the different kinds of harm people could be at risk at when being exposed to acts of indecency of obscenity. Unlike the tolerance test, the Harm test looks at thi... ... middle of paper ... ... not one act is wrongfully accused of being harmful when completely harmless, much like the accusations against Club L’orage through the community standards test. The Harm-based test is reasonable and efficient and has taken over as the number one most effective way to ensure whether or not an act is indecent or obscene. These are many different reasons why the harm-based test is a better test when it comes to determining offensive acts towards society, but the number one reason why it is the best possible test to use is because the number one priority for this test is making sure that at the end of the day the safety and well being of Canadian society is still intact. Works Cited Dyzenhaus, David, Sophia Moreau, and Arthur Ripstein. "R.V. Labaye." Law and morality: readings in legal philosophy. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. 336-341. Print.
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected sometime in the spring of 2002. This case does not directly address the issue of how the community standards requirement applies to determining whether online material is obscene (speech that does not receive First Amendment protection) rather than merely indecent (harmful for minors but protected for adults). The court's ruling will nonetheless be significant in terms of the future of the "community standards" test for obscenity online.
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.
With regards to the law of obscene, the only thing I would change is to take it out of law. However, I would leave in and stricken the parts regarding child pornography and child images shown in a sexual way. That is the only part of obscenity law I would leave in. But if PC 311 is truly put in the books to protect children then obvious it is necessary and fine by me. However, I believe it’s a way to put limitations on civil liberty, making it unconditional and wrong to human rights.
By comparing a basic Puritan to a basic Christian (of which 2.2 billion people or 32% of the world’s population is (Harper)), it becomes clear that the Puritan culture shares a large number of similarities. One of their bigger vexations is their arguments over public nudity. Depending on its usage, nudity may be considered a problem. Puritans of clean origins viewed public indecency as a negative influence; however, it was never actually written into law that a person could not walk around outside naked. The Puritan culture did, however, incorporate some forms of nudity into publications or plays (The Outlook). Outside of that type of judgment, nakedness was looked down upon harshly. Ever since the invention of the internet, many forms of nudity have swarmed around everywhere, becoming so massive that it could become accredited as a ‘public’ form of physical vulgarity. Evolving from simple ‘wink, wink’ jokes to full blown obscene movies, public nudity has scarred much of humanity. Many people would argue that nudity in a complete sense should be eradicated or at least ‘filtered.’ The Puritan culture almost had the perfect answer to our problem with such offensive matters: limit it by law. Almost as simple as activating ‘SafeSearch’ on a web browser, enforcing governmental law on a touchy topic would possibly solve the
Young, Alan. "The state is still in the bedrooms of the nation: the control and regulation of sexuality in Canadian criminal law." The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 17.4 (2008).
Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print.
This was on VR News tonight, the reasons they listed--a skate park had been graffitied and a park bench was slightly burned in a fire. These all seem a little light to me, I guess to a town of less than 9000 people, it's very severe, but is that an excuse to defy the Constitutional rights of Canadians?
(8) D., Lyons, Ethics and the Rule of Law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 81.
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).
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The Wex Legal Dictionary describes the term obscenity as “lewd, filthy, or disgusting words or pictures,” speech that is not protected by the First Amendment (CIT1). Another way one could define this term is words, images, or actions that “offend the sexual morality of its viewers (CIT2).” It is perhaps unsurprising that, in the vast expanse of today’s Internet, where anyone in the world can upload whatever they please, words and images that fall under this category are quite common. Also unsurprising is the fact that there has been more than one court case involving this subject. Obscenity and the Internet often go hand in hand, and share an interesting past, present, and perhaps future.
Another belief is held that cultural norms around sexuality, is insensitive to acts and persons that engage in any acts that are not seen as socially appropriate. Thus, making laws that unfairly stigmatize individuals who sexual expressions or sexual acts that are seen as perverted or dangerous. Post- World War II saw a similar response to deviant sexual behavior, this was linked to the changes of gender roles and the anxiety that it created around it. The conclusion was based that deviant sexual behavior was the culprit and an increase of the family and children principal took precedence. Which in turn, concludes that law was used as a tool for a legal
In Sizwe’s Test, Jonny Steinberg writes about his account of the implementation of HIV/AIDS treatment in the Lusikisiki district of South Africa. Steinberg’s guide and main subject throughout his research is Sizwe Magalda, a 30 year-old spaza shopkeeper from Ithanga, a small village within Lusikisiki. Throughout his 18-month stay in Lusikisiki, Steinberg questions Sizwe on his evolving beliefs and interpretations on HIV/AIDS, its perception, and its treatment in his community. Part One of the book develops the sense of community that Sizwe lives in, and it is quickly noted that the sense of community is not “community-oriented” at all: “Those who had tested positive were silently separated from the rest of the village” (Steinberg, 50). We would