• Obscenity - Wikipedia
  • A Christmas Story (1983) - Quotes - IMDb

Setting out the scope of the inquiry:

United States v. Roth, 1956, 237 F.2d 796

The Issue of Obscenity: Arguments on Pornography

Social science critiques and the dissent
A similar study is cited from Denmark (Ben-Vestiste 1970), comparing statistics on reported sex offences from 1958 to 1969. There was a steady decline over this period, despite the fact the Danish Parliament had voted to remove erotic literature from its obscenity statute in June 1967 and to repeal the statute altogether in 1969.

The Commission's legislative recommendations, therefore, were that federal and state legislation concerning the dissemination of sexual materials to consenting adults should be repealed, with some restrictions on what sexual materials could be provided to children. They based the former recommendation on the lack of conclusive evidence linking sexual materials to criminal behaviour, but argued that the paucity of empirical evidence regarding children in particular indicated caution.

Post-1980 – a decline in prosecutions and a change in focus

Posted on February 22, 2008 10:36 AM
It seems clear that however a liberal Western democracy may decide to deal with pornography, any modern secular government will seek to permit sexually explicit communication to adults on the same basis it permits communication about a wide variety of topics. What seems to be of special concern to governments and communities is a combination of sexually explicit content and sexual provocation, arousal, or excitation of an audience, from which it is assumed sexual activity will follow. (27)


I think that I shall never see,

No, I think for romance to work, allusion is everything.I humbly offer up the following poem:
She first asserts a claim that none would refute; that is, the Bill of Rights was formed to protect citizens from state powers. In regards to liberty, there are two ways in which to interpret it. The first is that liberty means license to be free of legal constraints; the second is that is means status as independent and equal. If liberty were to be interpreted in the first way, the freedom of speech would be a fundamental right, and citizens would be free of legal constraints concerning speech. However, liberty does not mean freedom from legality; the First Amendment does not protect this sort of license; there exist “legal constraints on liberty as license when we enact laws against rape, murder, assault, theft, etc,” (75). Liberty, therefore, must be interpreted as status as independent and equal. With this connotation of liberty, freedom is speech is not fundamental but a derivative of the basic right to independence—freedom to participate as an equal in determining how one will be governed. Therefore, freedom of speech is only applicable as the right to criticize the government, to protect a citizen against the abuse of power (76).

Though both can be described at length,
Despite thousands of words used to describe Wee Willy Winkie (Mark Morton lists 1,300 in his book ), none seem to adequately convey the language of love, with its most obvious method of delivery, without giggles. One might argue the biggest organ of love is the brain, but a man’s brain is not the organ which makes its presence most boldly known in the throes of passion.

For ample members are best left

Brennan’s findings are reminiscent of Longino’s arguments—one can now see from where she draws her viewpoint. However, if one found Longino’s assertion that the First Amendment only protects those criticizing the government or bringing about social or political change to be disturbing, then one might find Brennan’s contention even more so. For, while Longino is influential in her own way, Brennan was a Supreme Court justice who helped shape the application of the law. Fortunately, though, not all of the justices agreed with Brennan’s deliverance.

(even when one’s hands are deft)

Douglas elaborated on this statement; he claimed that the court’s ruling against Roth made “the legality of a publication turn on the purity of thought which a book or tract instills in the mind of the reader,” (508). By doing this, the court inflicted punishment based on thoughts and not on actual conduct. He stated that the court punished Roth for arousing sexual thoughts with his material, but that sexual thoughts occur in the human mind on a daily basis. Allowing the state to limit of censor words that a judge or jury thinks has a negative impact curtails the First Amendment. Douglas strongly stated,

untouched by writers’ florid prose,

Brennan distinguished between sex and obscenity, saying that obscenity appeals to prurient interests, whereas at times sex can be featured in literature and art without doing so. Material can be judged as obscene if the average person applying contemporary standards finds the theme of the material as a whole as applying to the baser, prurient, interests.

So drop the little one-eyed snake,

Government should be concerned with anti-social conduct, not with utterances. Thus, if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and press is to mean anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor. (513)