Lawyers Give a Hand in Porn vs Prostitution Question

Told you there was at least 10,000 words in this topic (as if you couldn't have guessed yourself).

Slate gives a heave-ho:

Pornography has enjoyed First Amendment protection since the 1950s. In the early 20^th century, pornography was considered obscene, yet it was also relatively rare. It wasn't until adult movies became more widespread that authorities paid more attention. In a 1957 Supreme Court case, Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan not only wrote that obscenity wasn't protected by the First Amendment, but also narrowed the definition of obscenity, effectively legitimizing most pornography.

So, what's obscene pornography? The standards changed with different court cases through the years. The test established by the Roth case asked whether the material as a whole appealed to an average person's prurient interests. A Massachusetts case involving the book John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure resulted in a three-pronged test: A work was obscene if it appealed to prurient interests, offended community standards, and had no social value. Prosecutors realized, however, that everything could be construed to have some social value. Thus the current standard, called the Miller test, now specifically singles out work that lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The fact that it is very hard to come to consensus, rational descriptions of the limits of sexual expression, public or private, indicates why sexual ethics and sensibilities remain a rally-point and endless source of psychic energy for regular politics and radical politics the world over.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...