Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docbungle
I don't understand. Since when is "being obscene" illegal? Edgy porn like this has been around for as long as VHS has been around. When did it become "illegal?"
|
Obscenity has
never been covered by the First Amendment, and therefore it can be regulated. I've been doing a bit more research, and I think I have a better idea of what is going on.
First, what is "obscenity"? Since 1973, the US defines it using the <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=clc0cl12ok3tl?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Miller+test&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04a">Miller test</a>.
Quote:
The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
|
Pretty vague, right? Back in 2003, the US took on Extreme Associates for a "video called Forced Entry, which includes depictions of rape, murder, suffocation, beatings and urination in sexual contexts". Further information about this case
here; the interesting part is that:
Quote:
During a hearing in November 2004, Zicari's lawyer argued that the right to privacy gave individuals the constitutional right to view offending materials in private, a right which cannot be meaningfully exercised without a corresponding right of companies to distribute such materials. The prosecution countered that an individual's right to privacy is unrelated to a company's right to commercial distribution.
On January 20 2005, the District Court judge dropped the charges, agreeing with the defense that the Federal anti-obscenity statutes are unconstitutional. The Department of Justice announced on February 16 2005 that it will appeal the ruling.
|
Which is where the case stands now. It appears that the US is trying to bolster their case that the Miller Rule is still valid, and is prosecuting multiple cases to try to restore Miller.
All of the materials that have been cited in these cases aren't stuff that I would want to watch. But, where does the line of legality get drawn? Any blood? Anything nonconsensual? Anything with multiple partners? Anything gay? Anything that is not missionary sex between a married heterosexual couple for the purpose of procreation?