A porn flick making its way across college campuses is drawing stiff resistance from critics who say universities shouldn't pay for smut. But the film's supporters say it doesn't rise to the legal definition of obscenity, and the schools have a First Amendment right to show it.Legally, freedom of speech does not hold for obscenity. So the definition of 'obscenity' is particularly important. I've personally never considered the "legal definition of obscenity".
(Prurient - Adj.
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. California, speech can only be defined as obscene when it meets three conditions -- it must appeal to prurient interest, violate contemporary community standards and lack serious artistic, literary, political or scientific value.
1. Having, inclined to have, or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc.
2. Causing lasciviousness or lust
3. Having a restless desire or longing. )
Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), was interviewd by Foxnews for their article. He states his opinion:
"We're very concerned about the Maryland Legislature interfering, and here's the reason why," he said. "I don't think there's any doubt that this movie is pornographic in nature but I think there is a very active question about whether this movie constitutes obscenity in any sense."Pornography is not obscene?
"I don't think this would be found to be obscene in the legal sense under the Miller v. California test because I do think this has artistic value," Shibley said, adding, "I am not comfortable with the government deciding what kind of art has value and what doesn't."Here is the underlying question: Does the government have any legitimate basis for making moral judgments?
Francis Schaeffer said that if the Bible is set aside as the moral standard for society and law, then over time it would be replaced by some elitist group, who would set the standards themselves.
Read the whole article here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment