Free Speech and Obscenity

[Kanamori]

Obscenity: something that is offensive to the accepted morals and decency of a society.

What do you guys think? Personally, I am of the mind that obscenity should be unprotected, as it has always been in my country.

[lancelot]

hmmm, tough one

Id broadly agree with your definition although there is a lot of wiggle room in there.

Personally, I dont think there should be any specific protection of obscene speech, but also think to there are much more important things to regulate first.

[BDC]

Well yes and no. I'm sure there are people in Britain who find it offensive and moral-less to go out drinking or to have pre-marital sex.

I however have no issue with either. :)

[yesdachi]

Just out of respect, you should not say obscene words or do obscene things in front of others that may not want to see or hear them, especially children (weather they want to, or not ~;) ).

Should it be against the law to use them in public… I don’t know. ~:confused:

Using an obscenity out of anger could be just like throwing a punch and elicit a “punch” in response. Accidentally saying one while slipping in a puddle in front of a playground full of kids is still using one but not with malice, does that make it different? Don’t know. ~:confused:

[Don Corleone]

I don't know that I agree with your defintion at all. It's a good start, but it needs refinement. By your defintion, at the time it was ongoing, the civil rights movement was obscene, because it offended the morals of white southern society.

How about adding 'with no redeeming social value' to the end of your definition? Then I'd be happier.

Are you warming up to point out that Alberto Gonzalez is following in Edwin Meese's footsteps and starting up the 'porn police' at the FBI again?

[The Stranger]

Well yes and no. I'm sure there are people in Britain who find it offensive and moral-less to go out drinking or to have pre-marital sex.

I however have no issue with either. :)


i agree...the tough thing is...what is the border...

[BDC]

i agree...the tough thing is...what is the border...
Well people definately shouldn't be allowed to completely ruin city centres on every Friday and Saturday. Same for regularly staggering about residential streets singing at 3am. On the other hand banning alcohol completely because some people think it's the spawn of satan is going too far.

[King Henry V]

Anything that limits the freedom of anyone in any way is contrary to the direction our constitution should be going. Let them say what they please. If you don't like it, cover your ears.
Another demonstration of today's selfishness.

[GoreBag]

I voted for the first one just because people will argue over the definition of 'obscenity'.

I think people can say what they like. I find obscenity rather funny most of the time.

[Kanamori]

Should it be against the law to use them in public… I don’t know.

I ask if it should be protected expression (not necessarily vocal words), which is not asking if obscenity ought to be censored. I can think of no other way to say it concisely, sorry if it sounds harsh (which it is not meant to be) but there is a big distinction.



I don't know that I agree with your defintion at all. It's a good start, but it needs refinement. By your defintion, at the time it was ongoing, the civil rights movement was obscene, because it offended the morals of white southern society.

This is a good point. When I speak of 'society', personally I mean nationally, but I know there have been others of that prefer to test obscenity more locally, e.g., white southern society. Also, I believe my phrasing it as 'society' should be changed to 'community', as society implies grouping by like-mindedness whereas community seems to imply a less congruous whole; i.e., a community would be represented demographically. Someone could simply say that their expression was not obscene, because the society they are in would not deem it as such. That is to say, the person would argue they are being charged under the wrong societal standards.

I believe I erred in the begining of the thread. I should have clearly laid out that there is also debate in how such things should be judged as obscene legally. Who is to judge what is offensive to the community, and with what reliability can something be judged obscene. There is a problem in clarity with my definition and its legal application; if those the law affects have doubt as to whether or not their actions are legal, then the application of the law cannot be very just.


How about adding 'with no redeeming social value' to the end of your definition? Then I'd be happier.

What makes something have "redeeming social value"? I believe a pornographer in the olden days, say maybe when Gawain was young ~;), would put a scene of good guys chasing bad guys before he got into the down-and-dirty. Once the sexually explicit part was done, he would show the bad guys getting caught, supposedly adding a moral to the story, which I'm sure his fans would attest to.


Are you warming up to point out that Alberto Gonzalez is following in Edwin Meese's footsteps and starting up the 'porn police' at the FBI again?

No, I was unaware of this, although it sounds interesting. I wish to have a forum on obscenity. A class of mine has made me interested in the topic.


Well people definately shouldn't be allowed to completely ruin city centres on every Friday and Saturday. Same for regularly staggering about residential streets singing at 3am. On the other hand banning alcohol completely because some people think it's the spawn of satan is going too far.

There is the casablanca test for obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Funny thing is, Stewart saw enough pornography in Casablanca when he was in the service to tell the difference. ~D

[Redleg]

Words used to de-mean (not sure of the spelling of the word) and slander others is not protected speech. If an individual uses certain terms to accomplish such things then they should suffer the consequences of thier speech.

All other speech should be protected under the Freedom of Speech concept that most nations follow.

Freedom of Speech implies only that the government can not hold you accountable for what you say, it does not mean that individual citizens can not hold you accountable for what you say. So if I find your speech offensive and tell you so - that is my expression of my Freedom of Speech.

[Kanamori]

Although it is not explicitly in our Constitution, obscenity has never been protected speech in the United States, like libel and slander.

[Goofball]

Anything that limits the freedom of anyone in any way is contrary to the direction our constitution should be going. Let them say what they please. If you don't like it, cover your ears.Another demonstration of today's selfishness.

On the other hand, one could argue that it's those who want to curtail the speech of others simply because they are offended by some silly-sounding words who are really the ones acting in a selfish manner.

[Kanamori]

I guess swearing falls under my definition, more importantly, I wasthinking of pornography and the like.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]Words used to de-mean (not sure of the spelling of the word) and slander others is not protected speech. If an individual uses certain terms to accomplish such things then they should suffer the consequences of thier speech. You're right only the ones that offend "honor" are the ones that should not be allowed, though that's the general doctrinarial position, personally i like more the restricted "honor".

All other speech should be protected under the Freedom of Speech concept that most nations follow. ~:cheers:

I think that, that's all.


I guess swearing falls under my definition, more importantly, I wasthinking of pornography and the like. Pornography? And why should that be persued. No it's 100% freedom of speech. It has to do with freedoms in general, only when it really offends others honor, then it should be unprotected, like for example taking the face of someone and editing with Corel.

[Kanamori]

Pornography? And why should that be persued. No it's 100% freedom of speech.

I never suggested that pornography should be banned. I suggested that sometimes, pornography may fall in with the definition of obscenity, therefore, wondering if pornography that is obscene ought be protected. The First Amendment was never meant to allow obscene expression of ideas. That is almost certain (as certain as I am that 2+2 does in fact equal 4).


It has to do with freedoms in general, only when it really offends others honor, then it should be unprotected, like for example taking the face of someone and editing with Corel.

Unprotected does not mean that it should necessarily be prosecuted, only that there should be the chance for the people to prosecute or the chance for the people to leave it be.

Have you ever read MacKinnon? She forcefully makes the case that pornography is harmful.


I think that, that's all.

The U.S. started the idea of Free Speech and our Supreme Court has never considered obscenity as being protected under the First Amendment.

[Soulforged]

I never suggested that pornography should be banned. I suggested that sometimes, pornography may fall in with the definition of obscenity, therefore, wondering if pornography that is obscene ought be protected. The First Amendment was never meant to allow obscene expression of ideas. That is almost certain (as certain as I am that 2+2 does in fact equal 4). Then my apolagices. But you're wrong in the second part, this is a misinterpretation of this kind of constitutional guarantees. All kinds of expression are protected until they offend other people, the qualitie of the expression doesn't sais anything.



Unprotected does not mean that it should necessarily be prosecuted, only that there should be the chance for the people to prosecute or the chance for the people to leave it be. Well that's what I meant.


Have you ever read MacKinnon? She forcefully makes the case that pornography is harmful. Then she or he is an ignorant, and should know that if pornography is abstractly offensive, then all people should agree with banning it. Not the case, many people like it...should I say all, even MacKinnon. On the other hand not all offese is harmful, only the ones that are directed towards an other, and that seriously harm his/her prestige or honor.



The U.S. started the idea of Free Speech and our Supreme Court has never considered obscenity as being protected under the First Amendment. Then your land is not of the free. I seriously think that many a lawyer or jurist must be crazy about this kind of absurdity and is trying to fix it right now, so don't worry. ~;)

[Papewaio]

Liberty vs Freedom.

[Kanamori]

Not entirely true. Flying the Nazi flag, pornography, and countless other things that would normally be considered "obscene" have been upheld under the first amendment.

This is because of the way the Supreme Court (SC) tests for obscenity. Also, flying the nazi flag is a political statement. I neither believe that most pornography is obscene nor that flying the nazi flag is obscene, as offensive as it may be.


But you're wrong in the second part, this is a misinterpretation of this kind of constitutional guarantees. All kinds of expression are protected until they offend other people, the qualitie of the expression doesn't sais anything.

Anything that is obscene is almost certainly offensive.


Then she or he is an ignorant, and should know that if pornography is abstractly offensive, then all people should agree with banning it.

There are many things that can be said of MacKinnon. However, it cannot be said that she is ignorant. She believes that pornography is more than offensive; she believes that it is harmful to society at large.


Then your land is not of the free. I seriously think that many a lawyer or jurist must be crazy about this kind of absurdity and is trying to fix it right now, so don't worry.

Of course, styles of interpretation differ. You will see the ACLU as amicus curiae saying that obscenity is protected, or some such (I do not know if they contend that obscenity is covered, or simply that the material in question is not obscene), as opposed to one who thinks that intent should be read from The Constitution.

[Divinus Arma]

Obscenity: something that is offensive to the accepted morals and decency of a society.

What do you guys think? Personally, I am of the mind that obscenity should be unprotected, as it has always been in my country.

I agree well enough with your definition.

All speech is, and should be, protected. Obscentiy should be protected. What is obscenity to one os lifestryle to another.

I think thge basic understanding is this:

"I have the right to swing my fist, so long as it does not strike you".

[Don Corleone]

Well, this is going to turn into an argument on semantics here shortly. I would argue that while pornography is not obscene, flying the Nazi flag is, based on Kanamori's defintion. Flying the Nazi flag is offensive to the accepted morals of our society. Sure, people should have the right to fly it, but that doesn't mean it's not offensive.

This whole discussion reminds me of a joke I heard one time.... The difference between kinky and perverse. Kinky is when you tickle your lover with a feather. Perverse is when you use the whole chicken. ~D

[Kanamori]

All speech is, and should be, protected.

All political expression certainly is, but obscenity has never been considered as protected.


Well, this is going to turn into an argument on semantics here shortly. I would argue that while pornography is not obscene, flying the Nazi flag is, based on Kanamori's defintion. Flying the Nazi flag is offensive to the accepted morals of our society. Sure, people should have the right to fly it, but that doesn't mean it's not offensive.

Semantics matter ~;). While flying the Nazi flag does fall in my definition, it is still not solely obscenity, but it is also political expression. Adding the requirement for redeeming value covers this, I believe. The expression of diverse political values has always been the main facet of our Freedom of Speech. Although I certainly agree; my definition may cover all of obscenity, it is too general and not refined well. Defining it more precisely is difficult and designing tests for obscenity is equally difficult.

[Don Corleone]

Semantics matter ~;). They absolutely do. I didn't mean to use that statement as a brush off. It's impossible to debate terms that don't hold common meaning for all parties. I simply meant that at some point, even though it looks like we're arguing, we may be agreeing and vice versa.


While flying the Nazi flag does fall in my definition, it is still not solely obscenity, but it is also political expression. Adding the requirement for redeeming value covers this, I believe. The expression of diverse political values has always been the main facet of our Freedom of Speech. Although I certainly agree; my definition may cover all of obscenity, it is too general and not refined well. Defining it more precisely is difficult and designing tests for obscenity is equally difficult.

Well said. In essensce, you've summarized the crux of the First Ammendment debate that has been ongoing since it was instituted. From the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1791 to Robert Mapplethorpe's exhibits and the NEA funding for them, it's a very thorny issue. What's obscene? Equally important, what's censorship? Is refusing to fund somebody's speech the equivalent of silencing them? Interesting thread...