|
In the United States, there have been many Supreme Court cases regarding topics just such as this (unfortunately I can't recall the names off hand... sorry =P ), and our current laws go something like this.
It all relates to obscenity. According to the Supreme Court, anything considered "obscene" is not technically covered under the freddom of expression clause of the First Amendment, and as such that is when it can become illegal.
However, the definition of obscenity is not set in stone. In order for something to be considered obscene, it should meet 3 requirements...
1) There is no artistic or educational value
2) (Can't remember this one... any help?)
3) It represents a prurient interest in sex. (That's how it was worded)
So on a basic level, anything that meets those 3 requirements (again, I apologize that I can't remember the second) can be considered "obscene."
However, Tirian is correct when he says that it is effectively up to a judge to decide that. The wording of the Supreme Court's decisions said that, essentially, what is considered "obscene" is almost entirely up to the locality. One community (city, county, state... again, loosely defined) could be considerably more lenient than another in what it considers obscene.
As far as your question regarding the animal show you were watching, you would have a very difficult time making the argument that it was obscene. First of all, there is clearly an educational value to the program. Some might argue that the children didn't need to be shown, but then you look at the third part of the guideline... nobody could argue that the show had a "prurient interest in sex."
So basically, my answer is "it depends." =P
|