Tweet
The courts have never made a consistent definition of obscene (I believe they only said "I know it when I see it"). Because there isn't one. One person's obscenity is perfectly normal to another person. What would you say if something you treasure (say the Bible, that has had lots of nasty stuff in it - rape and genocide and so forth) is declared obscene?
-
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
Lincoln -They wouldn't recognise much of anything these days from Social Security to the BATF.Well I am not talking about one unconstitutional act (the Alien and Sedition Act) but hundreds of laws that were on and remained on the books and were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Of course the founders new nothing of th 14th Amendment and that was my point: The foundrers would not recognize our so called free speech as it is interpreted today.
But I don't know about the local or state laws against porn back then, as I understand it, prostitution was legal in most places. People back then sought social remedies to vice rather than "rabble, rabble, rabble" (the sound of the crowd in South Park ) laws for everything.
Comment
-
Obviously gay porn isn't a problem. I mean, no exploitation of women there. Pretty much an equal power dynamic, yessirree.
Hmm, but then again, maybe gay porn is more exploitative than I am thinking. Maybe there's something sinister about it. I had better do more research.
*fires up Kazaa*
Tutto nel mondo è burlaComment
-
Ramo -Exactly! I think a beautiful naked woman is proof that God exists.The courts have never made a consistent definition of obscene (I believe they only said "I know it when I see it"). Because there isn't one. One person's obscenity is perfectly normal to another person. What would you say if something you treasure (say the Bible, that has had lots of nasty stuff in it - rape and genocide and so forth) is declared obscene? Nothing "obscene" about it... Now, Rosie O'Donnel in spandex? Yikes! That's obscene 
Comment
-
Well whatever obscene means it is not protected speech is it? That was my point.Originally posted by Ramo
The courts have never made a consistent definition of obscene (I believe they only said "I know it when I see it"). Because there isn't one. One person's obscenity is perfectly normal to another person. What would you say if something you treasure (say the Bible, that has had lots of nasty stuff in it - rape and genocide and so forth) is declared obscene?Comment
-
dp"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
If obscenity is whatever you want it to be, why bother with pretense of having freedom of speech? Isn't that kind of arbitrary suppression of speech exactly what the First Amendment is designed to guard against?Well whatever obscene means it is not protected speech is it? That was my point.
Exactly! I think a beautiful naked woman is proof that God exists. Nothing "obscene" about it... Now, Rosie O'Donnel in spandex? Yikes! That's obscene
Evil, evil thoughts...
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Lincoln -The bold are subjective. Since when do 9 people get to decide what ideas or expressions offer what others consider redeeming qualities? They made that up in accordance with their own views, not what's in the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution simply does not empower Congress to write any law it wants. The laws Congress writes have to have some enumerated constitutional power behind them, and I see nothing in the Constitution authorising Congress to ban "obscenity".3. Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States. Pp. 481-485.
(a) In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. Pp. 482-483.
[b](b) The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. P. 484.
(c) All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. Pp. 484-485. [354 U.S. 476, 477]Last edited by Berzerker; March 18, 2003, 23:10.Comment
-
It is not whatever I want it to be. And I am not bothering with any pretense one way or the other. I am simply responding to the question posed on the first post of this thread. The first amendment was designed to guard against prosecution of people who opposed government policy primarily.Originally posted by Ramo
If obscenity is whatever you want it to be, why bother with pretense of having freedom of speech? Isn't that kind of arbitrary suppression of speech exactly what the First Amendment is designed to guard against?
Comment
-
Sure it is. What is obscenity.It is not whatever I want it to be."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I don't think they do get to decide anything that is contrary to the founder's intentions. I still see no evidence that the founders intended to allow the unfettered distribution of pornography. The laws in force at the time were not overturned because to the first amendment. Even in 1957 there was no right to obscenity. That has been a recent perversion (no pun intended) of the founder's intentions.Originally posted by Berzerker
... Since when do 9 people get to decide what ideas or expressions offer what others consider redeeming qualities? They made that up in accordance with their own views, not what's in the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution simply does not empower Congress to write any law it wants. The laws Congress writes have to have some enumerated constitutional power behind them, and I see nothing in the Constitution authorising Congress to ban "obscenity".Comment
-
It is protected. And one reason why it should be protected is the subjectivity inherent in defining the term. Ramo's right, if government can ban whatever it decides is "obscene", then it can ban anything. Remember, the Constitution is a grant of certain enumerated powers; therefore, whenever Congress wants to act, it must have authority to act. Now, what gets messy, as you mentioned earlier, is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. The Scotus has never applied the 14th Amendment in a consistent manner. Localities can ban guns but not speech? What's the difference? Both are protected by the Constitution...Well whatever obscene means it is not protected speech is it? That was my point.Comment
-
It is what comes into my spam box in my email account! Would you like me to forward it to you?Originally posted by Ramo
What is obscenity.
Comment
-
First off, I agree that the whole thing is a quagmire of confusion thanks to the intervention of the courts. But my point remains that in the beginning the founder's intentions did not allow for the unfettered distribution of porn. Can you name a case when that supposed right was upheld before the 20th century? And even now it is supposedly restricted.Originally posted by Berzerker
It is protected. And one reason why it should be protected is the subjectivity inherent in defining the term. Ramo's right, if government can ban whatever it decides is "obscene", then it can ban anything. Remember, the Constitution is a grant of certain enumerated powers; therefore, whenever Congress wants to act, it must have authority to act. Now, what gets messy, as you mentioned earlier, is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. The Scotus has never applied the 14th Amendment in a consistent manner. Localities can ban guns but not speech? What's the difference? Both are protected by the Constitution...Comment
-
I think some people are fine with pictures of people being naked or having sexOriginally posted by GePap
Why wouldn't pornography be considered free speech? What, allowing blatantly racist, anti-semitic and mysoginistic tracts, articles calling for all sorts of represssion: thoese are allowed, but pictures of people being naked, or having sex, Oh no, the world will end!
they just don't like porn that objectifies it
there is a lot of naked people, and sexual interplay, that is not considered porn (in movies, books, and elsewhere)
personally, I find that a lot of porn turns me off (at least initially)
Jon MillerJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
Comment