Obscenity: Difference between revisions

From BoyWiki
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
Whatever you think of the Supreme Court justices - I will not put here my opinion of Clarence Thomas - it is undeniable that they have taken their positions seriously. These highly-educated men and women - better educated than most members of congress and all presidents since Woodrow Wilson (who, excuse me for pointing out the value of education, gave us the League of Nations) - have not been immune to ideological pressures, but so far as is known - and the Supreme Court is intensely scrutinized - there has been no bribery for a very long time. In the United States, this is as close to incorruptibility as one gets. Some scholars have pointed out that being subject to ideological pressures is not only wise, it is inevitable.
Whatever you think of the Supreme Court justices - I will not put here my opinion of Clarence Thomas - it is undeniable that they have taken their positions seriously. These highly-educated men and women - better educated than most members of congress and all presidents since Woodrow Wilson (who, excuse me for pointing out the value of education, gave us the League of Nations) - have not been immune to ideological pressures, but so far as is known - and the Supreme Court is intensely scrutinized - there has been no bribery for a very long time. In the United States, this is as close to incorruptibility as one gets. Some scholars have pointed out that being subject to ideological pressures is not only wise, it is inevitable.


What these distinguished gentlemen have left us with is the equation of providing sexual stimulation with "lack of social value". The one thing you can't do is turn readers on; that is awful and we've prohibited it. Teach someone (in a book) how to kill, the First Amendment protects you. Provide sexual pleasure, or teach the reader how to get or find sexual pleasure, that serves no social purpose and the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting it.
What these distinguished gentlemen have left us with is the equation of providing sexual stimulation with "lack of social value". The one thing you can't do is turn readers on; that is awful and we've prohibited it. Teach someone (in a book) how to kill, the First Amendment protects you. Provide sexual pleasure, or teach the reader how to get or find sexual pleasure, that serves no social purpose and the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting it.  
 
It is rare to see such a clearcut labelling of sex as bad.
 
Masturbation was threatening to females. Who's going to buy the cow if they can get the milk for free?
 
 


According to the famous 1957 [[Roth]]  [[Supreme Court]] decision, the obscene work must also be "utterly without redeeming social value" to lose First Amendment protection. "Socially valuable" meant, and still means today, doing something other than sexually stimulating the reader or viewer.
According to the famous 1957 [[Roth]]  [[Supreme Court]] decision, the obscene work must also be "utterly without redeeming social value" to lose First Amendment protection. "Socially valuable" meant, and still means today, doing something other than sexually stimulating the reader or viewer.

Revision as of 23:16, 10 May 2015

An obscenity is any statement or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time. Satirizing the ruler may be obscene, offending the god(s) may be obscene, making obscene profits is obscene.

The United States, a litigious country (it was born litigious), has led the world in specifying specifically what obscenity is in the United States. "Freedom of the press" is protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity.

This is how these things get decided in the United States: the Supreme Court decides them. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate; after that, they have a job for life and never have to worry about elections. This is as close to royalty that one finds in the United States, created before the French revolution of 1789, when monarchy had never been seriously challenged outside of England.

Whatever you think of the Supreme Court justices - I will not put here my opinion of Clarence Thomas - it is undeniable that they have taken their positions seriously. These highly-educated men and women - better educated than most members of congress and all presidents since Woodrow Wilson (who, excuse me for pointing out the value of education, gave us the League of Nations) - have not been immune to ideological pressures, but so far as is known - and the Supreme Court is intensely scrutinized - there has been no bribery for a very long time. In the United States, this is as close to incorruptibility as one gets. Some scholars have pointed out that being subject to ideological pressures is not only wise, it is inevitable.

What these distinguished gentlemen have left us with is the equation of providing sexual stimulation with "lack of social value". The one thing you can't do is turn readers on; that is awful and we've prohibited it. Teach someone (in a book) how to kill, the First Amendment protects you. Provide sexual pleasure, or teach the reader how to get or find sexual pleasure, that serves no social purpose and the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting it.

It is rare to see such a clearcut labelling of sex as bad.

Masturbation was threatening to females. Who's going to buy the cow if they can get the milk for free?


According to the famous 1957 Roth Supreme Court decision, the obscene work must also be "utterly without redeeming social value" to lose First Amendment protection. "Socially valuable" meant, and still means today, doing something other than sexually stimulating the reader or viewer.