Possession of Obscene Material and Infringement on Civil Liberties

1342 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Interpretation of the 1st amendment

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Obscene is defined as “disgusting to the senses, repulsive”. California law defines obscene matter as “taken as a whole, that the average person applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interested, that taken as a whole depicts, or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and that taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. Obscenity refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media. The objectionable material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security.

The Bill of Rights, “First Amendment Prohibits Congress from establishing religion and restricting it free exercise; also prohibits Congress from abridging freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition. So does the First Amendment cover obscenity? The Supreme Court says No, it has declined to grant First Amendment protection to utterances and writings that are obscene or defamatory. Justice Potter Stewart expressed the difficulty in his famous utterance “I shall not today attempt to further define obscenity, but I know it when I see it”. The Judicial system used the Miller test, a test that uses three questions to define obscenity. Question 1-does the average person applying contemporary, community standards, believe that the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeal to a prurient interest? Question 2-Is the material potently offensive? Question 3-Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Under FCC rules and Fede...

... middle of paper ...

... has put zoning laws, for clubs that have nude-dancing.

Personal possession of obscene material in ones’ home may not be prohibited by law. Writing for court in case Stanley vs. Georgia Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote “if the First Amendment means anything it means that the state has no business telling a man sitting in his home what books he may read or what films he may watch”.

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.

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Miller Test

    1068 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The First Amendment Logerie By Susan Jacoby

    1129 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Miller vs. California

    480 Words  | 1 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet

    601 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” by Susan Brownmiller, my opinion regarding the censorship of pornography has not changed. Although her essay was very forthright and descriptive, it seemed very biased.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The First Amendment

    1158 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Minneapolis Institute Of Art Case Summary

    1951 Words  | 4 Pages

    In today’s case, we are looking at the supposed obscenity of an art exhibit in the Minneapolis Institute of Art (MIA) and supposed violations of free speech. This art exhibit contained various photographs, including what has been described as “substantially lewd or indecent” under certain Minnesota statutes. With this case, we have a divided court and a variety of issues with both sides of the arguments. In this case, the ACLU is attempting to say that their clients’ freedom of speech rights have been violated with the restraint of these pieces of an exhibit. We tend to disagree and side with the City of Minneapolis, in part. For the issue of freedom of speech infringements, we believe that the rights of the 17-year old senior have not been violated, and that the freedom of speech rights of the artist himself were violated in part, pertaining the restraint of one of the pieces of the exhibit.

    Read More

  • Child Pornography and the Supreme Court

    614 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper we shall present an important case involving the government's attempt to defend a child-protection law designed to guard minors against internet pornography. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 00-795, the court heard arguments over the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA). Ashcroft - "Ashcroft" & nbsp; The production or possession of actual child pornography was illegal prior to 1996; the CPPA broadened the definition of child pornography to include images that merely appear to be children engaged in sexually explicit conduct -- for example, images of adults digitally altered to look like children -- or that convey the impression that the individuals involved are minors. The rationale behind the law was that it is not only the children involved in the creation of child pornography that are harmed, but that the images themselves are harmful because they incite pedophiles to abuse children.

    Read More

  • Ira Isaacs: Violating Federal Obscenity

    2196 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Judy Blume Book Report

    545 Words  | 2 Pages

    In studying the life of Judy Blume, it is possible that her legacy may reach beyond the words of her books and instead her impact on the world will be found in her passion for the anticensorship movement that protects her books. Nevertheless, despite her and her supporters’ efforts, a Supreme Court ruling (Burger) in an obscenity case Miller v. California (June 21, 1937) opened the door to shut Blume out of libraries if her books could not pass the obscenity “test”- many could not. The court concluded that literary works could be subject to regulation (i.e. banning)

    Read More

  • goo goo

    1324 Words  | 3 Pages

    Benjamin Franklin once said, “If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.” Censorship is the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. Therefor, someone decides what is offensive and what is not. Nevertheless, what is offensive? Offensive to whom? When are lines drawn on what is deemed “dirty”? The history of musical censorship dates back to Plato’s vision of an ideal society in the Republic.

    Read More

  • Burlesque

    1914 Words  | 4 Pages

    What is obscenity? According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, obscenity is the state or quality of being obscene which means that is offensive to modesty and or decency. During the 1930s and 1940s, New York City was infected with burlesque shows. During these times this shows were considered indecent and immoral by Mayor LaGuardia, his license commissioner Paul Moss, and John Sumner. Women were used as objects of entertainment. In 1934 Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia took office. Fiorello LaGuardia was a decisive and objective man. Mayor LaGuardia saw a very problematic situation for New York City when it came to this kind of performances. The targets of LaGuardia ‘s wrath were burlesque houses, where strippers had alternated turns with stand-up comics and the other acts since at least the turn of the century (Newyorkmetro.com). Clearly, LaGuardia was focused on stopping these displays of female degradation. It is important to mention that were two kinds of entertainments displays during this time. One group was the burlesque shows, which degraded females by displaying them as sexual objects. These shows were targeted towards the low income and illiterated people. The other group was called Ziegfeld Follies, which was aimed for the high elite people. This form of entertainment was a very refine and elaborated, but also did contain degrading displays. Regardless, Fiorello LaGuardia’s campaign unfairly opposed Burlesque performances instead of the Ziegfeld Follies, since it was politically easier to take action against shows that were supported by the lower class.

    Read More

  • Censorship vs Freedom of Speech

    478 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Freedom of speech, under the Bill of Rights, the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Under this amendment of the Constitution many battles have been fought in the Supreme Court over which forms of expression should be allowed. However, many argue that if we are to allow all forms of expression than the American public will be subjected to and assaulted by indecent material. But what constitutes indecency and decency? The Webster dictionary defines the word "Decent" as being characterized by conformity to recognized standards. So the next logical question is, "To whose limit do we set the decency level to?" What may be indecent to one person may be completely normal and allowable to another. The freedom of speech is a recognized standard that the majority of Americans believe in, so with this in mind, it is the people who try to ban our liberty of free speech that are being indecent.

    Read More

  • The Offense Principle

    871 Words  | 2 Pages

    A man masturbating in public is offensive to almost everyone, therefore, this act should be limited.The final condition states that an offensive act should be limited if you have to go out of your way to avoid the act. An "adult" bookstore containing pornographic material should not be limited because one does not have to go out of their way to avoid the store. They simply just do not enter into the store. But a man and woman having sex on a bench should be limited because one would have to restrain from looking in certain directions to avoid seeing the offensive act.I believe that pornography in public should be banned.

    Read More

  • The Community Tolerance Test

    1317 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • The Argument Of Flag Desecration

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    Cohen brought up two ideas of the amendment and how yes, it is supposedly meant to protect opinions and expression, but also how the Framers did not warrant for it to protect all forms of expression. Because of this we have laws against libel, slander, and obscenity, all of which were not there to begin with. While the author pointed out that there is obviously room for change, it still stands that the First Amendment was not put in place to protect people from being

    Read More

More about Possession of Obscene Material and Infringement on Civil Liberties

Open Document