Author Question: The U.S. Supreme Court defined obscenity in 1973 in a decision called Miller v. California by ... (Read 65 times)

bobypop · **on:** Jun 19, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court defined obscenity in 1973 in a decision called Miller v. California by
saying that
A publication must, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest, must contain
patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the
whole have no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This obscenity, the Court has said, is not protected by the First Amendment, as that was not the
intention of the Founding Fathers.

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

A blogger in New Jersey named Harold Hal Turner posted a rant on his blog that three federal
appellate judges deserve to be killed because they upheld a ban on handguns in Chicago. He
had a long career as an Internet radio shock jock, neo-Nazi, racist, advocate of lynching blacks
and Latinos, and Holocaust-denier. He was arrested in June 2009 by Federal officials for
threatening to assault and murder the judges. He defended himself by arguing that his blog
postings were protected by the First Amendment and that he had been extreme in his rhetoric at
the urging of the FBI, for whom he worked as an informant about white supremacist groups.
After two mistrials, he was convicted at the third and served three years in Federal prison. He
was released in 2012 to six months of house arrest and is prohibited from Internet radio
programming for the next three years.

What will be an ideal response?

momo1250 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 19, 2018

Answer to Question 1

1. Some have said that it is difficult to define obscenity, but they would know it when they
see it. Carefully consider the above definition of obscenity. Do you find this an adequate
definition? How would you modify or expand that definition? Does it accurately define
those things you consider obscenity, nothing more and nothing less?
2. J.S. Mill has said that he believes obscenity should be protected free speech. Using the
definition above, do you agree or disagree? Develop ethical arguments to support your
position.
3. Legal philosopher Catherine MacKinnon has urged that pornography should be
censored, as it encourages violence against women and thus causes real harm to
women. She was instrumental in encouraging the city of Indianapolis to pass an
ordinance banning all pornography with this rationale. The definition of pornography in
that ordinance started with the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women,
whether in pictures or in words, followed by a list of six things, at least one of which
must be included to count as pornography. The list included, e.g., Women are
presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation. How does this definition of
pornography (which is protected free speech) differ from obscenity (which is not)? A
federal appeals court struck down the ordinance as a violation of the First Amendment
protection of free speech. Is this conclusion justifiable on ethical free speech grounds?
The degrading treatment of women can be considered a form of hate speech. Should
that override the free speech rights of pornographers?

Answer to Question 2

1. Does this conviction sound justified to you, from what you learn here? Should people like
Turner have the right to make such remarks in any forum, whether an Internet blog or at
a public rally? Even if they had a First Amendment right to such speech, would that
speech be ethical?
2. As Turner was in New Jersey and the judges were in Chicago, it sounds as if he was
trying to incite violence against the judges, although modern transportation would have
made it easy for him to travel to Chicago. Assuming his only goal was to incite others to
commit the murders, should that be protected free speech? Is it ethical speech?