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. To understand more about obscenity and the Internet, one needs to understand the origins of the subject. Before the Internet was even a concept, obscenity was an issue that arose frequently, and needed to be subsequently dealt with. In the era …show more content…
Anthony Comstock was a man with strong opinions about what he considered to be obscene, and an equally strong resolve to put an end to it (CIT3). According to Comstock (And many other men at the time), things such as birth control and abortion were obscene (CIT4). Comstock was a very rich man, and used his wealth to get a law passed against things that he considered obscene, such as these (CIT4). The passed law was known as “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use,” or, in simpler terms, “Comstock Law (CIT4).” However, the values of a society change throughout passing decades, and “Comstock Law” grew increasingly controversial the longer it was around. In 1973, one-hundred years later, in court case “Roe v. Wade,” the law was changed to only concern “unlawful abortions (CIT3).” However, by 1997, the “abortion-related elements” of obscenity law were
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
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...
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).
Chief Justice Warren Burger set three rules that are helpful in determining whether a material is pornographic or not. First, it is important to determine whether the material appeals to the prurient interest if an average person applies contemporary community standards to that materia (Barmore 475)l. Second, determine whether the material describes or depict sexual content, in a patently offensive manner (Barmore 476). Finally, determine whether the entire work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Hafen 210). These three tests can help one determine whether a
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.
Bibliography: Justice.gov. (2014). USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_obscenity.html [Accessed: 7 Apr 2014].
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.
Quinn, A J. Censorship of Obscenity: A Comparison of Canon Law and American Constitutional Law. Rome: Officium Libri Catholici--Catholic Book Agency, 1963. Print.
Definition of obscenity: the state or quality of being obscene; obscene behavior, language, or images.
Abortion, or the deliberate termination of an unwanted pregnancy was the main issue discussed in the Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade. Abortions have occurred since ancient times, and various techniques have been used to perform them. Before the 19th century abortions were legal, but were very dangerous due to the lack of medical equipment that was available. Beginning in the 1820’s many states started restricting access to abortions and contraceptive methods. In 1873, the U.S. Congress passed the Comstock Act, which prohibited the distribution of medications and other devices that could be used to have an abortion. Individuals convicted of violating the act could face years of imprisonment. This was one of the first acts passed that put restrictions
that some of the material that is on the net needs to be filtered and regulated. The word censorship is defined as examining any material and prohibiting what is objectionable, according to Webster’s II dictionary. Censoring the internet is a violation of the first ammendment rights of every citizen in the United States. There are two general truths that some people feel are attitudes towards censoring the internet. The first is that very few people admit to favoring it. The second is that no matter who you are, in a matter of minutes spent surfing the net almost anyone can find something that they find to be offensive. In fact, some web surfers feel that the truly inappropriate things are inspired by one’s own religion. For example, the Nurenberg Files website showed pictures of mangled fetuses with the photograph, name, and address of some abortion clinic doctors.
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.
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").... ...
Pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, pornography consisting of aged 18 or older consenting adults, is legal. Anyone with the access to a computer is four letters away from the ability to view pornography. Simply typing “porn” into a Google search bar will yield thousands of videos of illicit content, most of which will be free to view. The quality of these videos vary site by site, some are home videos of couple posting their exploits online to see, and some videos are full scale productions with plots and famous porn-stars who are
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.