Posted by panchmaster from pool0475.cvx20-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (126.96.36.199) on Friday, October 18, 2002 at 1:09PM :
In Reply to: Obscenity posted by Jeff from ? (188.8.131.52) on Friday, October 18, 2002 at 12:28PM :
: Obscenity and the Internet in US.
: It is important to note that this decision was over pornography, not obscene materials, which have no First Amendment protection.
+++Okay...why isn't pornography also obscene material?
United States common law distinguishes between offensive speech, indecent speech and obscene speech (Akdeniz 1996).
+++Well JEEZUS CHRIST...seems to me you could have found the definition of three kinds of speech...what is OFFENSIVE.....INDECENT and OBSCENE??? Kind of the whole point...NO???
Indecent Speech has first amendment protection, but can be limited with a compelling government interest (as in the case of minors). However, Obscene speech has no first amendment protections. This was confirmed in the 1957 case of Roth v. United States, which reaffirmed the previous belief that obscenity laws have no implication on the first amendment (Akdeniz 1996).
+++Damn it!! What about the recent case in Michigan that was won on appeal...the guy who cussed up a storm in front of women and children...the justices overturned and threw out the law as well.
However, any ideas with redeeming social importance or literary merit could not be labeled as obscene.
: Obviously, that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment has been less of an issue than deciding what is obscene. Prior to 1957, the Hicklin Test was the most important standard for determining whether material was obscene or not. This test was laid out by British judge Chief Justice Cockburn in the 1868 case of R v. Hicklin (Cragg and Koggel 1997, 179). By this standard, material was obscene if it tended to deprave and corrupt those who might access the material (Cragg and Koggel 1997, 179; Easton 1998, 607). The definition of obscenity was largely confused until the Supreme Court laid out a new standard in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The test has three parts and all three parts must be satisfied. The parts are laid out by Akdeniz (1996) as follows:
: the average person using contemporary moral standards finds the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
: the work depicts or describes in an offensive sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.
: the work lacks, on a whole, serious literary artistic political or scientific value.
+++Well hell, I didn't do any of that.
: This test of obscenity has not gone unchallenged, especially since in two parts of the test, the use community standards and state law, vary widely over jurisdictions across the US. System operators of Internet providers must be especially aware of the more than 50 jurisdictions in the US and their laws, especially since the case of US v. Thomas where a couple operating a BBS in California were convicted in a Tennessee court using the community standards of Memphis, which are stricter than those in California (Akdeniz 1996).
-- signature .
Post a Followup