Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first amendment is supposed to protect freedom of speech but also protect the public from obscenity which means that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment.
The pornography industry has been given protection to peddle very obscene smut online apparently under the guise of being protected under the first amendment.
How can online pornography be considered decent and not obscene? Why is there no resistance on a large scale to the peddling of this depraved behavior?
To quote from the included link to a relevant article:
"The Supreme Court squarely confronted the obscenity question in Roth v. United States (1957), a case contesting the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the mailing of any material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character.” The Court, in an opinion drafted by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., determined that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” He articulated a new test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.”
If the public and population at large do not seem to have a problem with the problem of online porn which is being consumed rampantly by young adolescents because of their easy access to it then the population must be a very obscene, depraved and apathetic bunch indeed.
The first amendment is supposed to protect freedom of speech but also protect the public from obscenity which means that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment.
The pornography industry has been given protection to peddle very obscene smut online apparently under the guise of being protected under the first amendment.
How can online pornography be considered decent and not obscene? Why is there no resistance on a large scale to the peddling of this depraved behavior?
To quote from the included link to a relevant article:
"The Supreme Court squarely confronted the obscenity question in Roth v. United States (1957), a case contesting the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the mailing of any material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character.” The Court, in an opinion drafted by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., determined that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” He articulated a new test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.”
If the public and population at large do not seem to have a problem with the problem of online porn which is being consumed rampantly by young adolescents because of their easy access to it then the population must be a very obscene, depraved and apathetic bunch indeed.
Porn is obviously obscene. But are you proposing increasing censorship of the internet?
If ANYONE wants to watch porn shoot porn smoke pot etc in THIER home then they should be allowed to don't like it? Then don't go to that persons house go out and get a life of your own.
I'd argue that debates on pornography are beneath the first amendment, which is primarily concerned with protecting political speech.
Obscenity is a legal term, in the context of this debate. As that's defined, the vast majority of porn is completely legal.
What you're advocating for is extending what constitutes as obscenity, not for banning porn based on the current standards. Just so we're clear.
While I fully agree that there is a problem with online porn, mostly in that young people (mostly men/boys) are often having their first exposure to sex through pornography, we should exercise caution in trying to brand the porn itself as obscene. We (or at least I and many others) wouldn't want to drift into Puritanism.
The first amendment is supposed to protect freedom of speech but also protect the public from obscenity which means that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment.
That's odd?? I don't see that. Point me to that language, please.
I think it is an oversimplification to suggest all pornography is either obscene or decent. I think there is at least one category in between. For example, I wouldn't call soft porn either obscene or decent. Somewhere on the continuum porn does become obscene. But I don't think it is a binary categorization.
The first amendment is supposed to protect freedom of speech but also protect the public from obscenity which means that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment.
The pornography industry has been given protection to peddle very obscene smut online apparently under the guise of being protected under the first amendment.
How can online pornography be considered decent and not obscene? Why is there no resistance on a large scale to the peddling of this depraved behavior?
To quote from the included link to a relevant article:
"The Supreme Court squarely confronted the obscenity question in Roth v. United States (1957), a case contesting the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the mailing of any material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character.” The Court, in an opinion drafted by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., determined that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” He articulated a new test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.”
If the public and population at large do not seem to have a problem with the problem of online porn which is being consumed rampantly by young adolescents because of their easy access to it then the population must be a very obscene, depraved and apathetic bunch indeed.
You clearly didn’t read the article you posted in its entirety.
My argument against pornography isn't that it's decent and not obscene. Much of it is obscene, but it's still protected by the first amendment. My argument against it is most of it amounts to prostitution. Accordingly as long as the "actors" are not paid and the work is not sold, then it's okay. Selling pornography online falls under the commerce clause, you know the constitutional clause that has more lately been interpreted to allow the government to regulate just about everything under the sun where money changes hands.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
