Disadvantages Of Obscenity

Pornography was defined by Brownmiller as any material that was “obscene if they depict patently offensive, hardcore sexualconduct; lack serious scientific literary, artistic or political value; and appeal to the prurient interest of an average personas measured by contemporary community standards. Supplementary saying that if the picture, film, or any other source of media that can be “adjudged obscene” and is not in an enlightening, edifying or informative stature than then shall it be seen as pornography and not justifiable by the first amendment.

(Digital Economy Act 2017) – Digital Economy Act 2017 promotes e-safety. Providers are obliged to block access of internet pornography for children under 18 years old. It states everything about rules to communicating over social-media, sharing personal data and the provision of certain aspects such as internet filter, drug-dealing, cyber-bullying etc. Current

Under Miller v. California (1973) in order for material to be found obscene by a court of law, the material must appeal to the prurient interest, as judged against local community standards. The material must also depict or describe sexual conduct (as defined by applicable state law) in a "patently offensive" or "indecent" way and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. These standards apply equally in the context of the Internet as they do in ordinary books and magazines. Where material is found to be obscene, the First Amendment does not apply. This decision

Susan Jacoby's essay represents her unique image as a “First Amendment Junkie” and what it means for her in society of her times. Her belief that the First Amendment must be carried on at all costs without regarding the content, which in this case she expresses particularly in pornography. Jacoby states that allowing censorship of pornography could open up the possibilities of censoring other things if so, what could be those other things? Could we agree with her? Had we censored pornography back in the 70's would we as women be where we are now? After analyzing Jacoby's article, She does not excuse or deny that pornography can be or is vulgar,

There has been a lot of debate on the legal understandings of term obscene and its usage. Constitutionally, the term is used to define certain behaviors or expressions in motion pictures, art or literature. The law tries to look at the effects that obscenity would have on the morals of the people or on the minds of those that see the material. It also considered the effect some publications would have on the hands that they might fall in. There has been an evolution of the whole idea over the years since the inception and the legalities behind it.

The first part of the CDA states if you display "indecent" or "patently offensive" information on the Internet, "in a manner available to a person under eighteen years of age," you are a criminal and have broken the law. The second part of the CDA reads you have a defense against prosecution if you take "reasonable, effective, and appropriate action" by restricting access to minors by needing a credit card (verified), debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number. This act is to be thought of as a way to legally zone porn behind and electric gate that can only be accessed by those who have adult identification. To receive full access to pornographic materials, one can pay a one-time fee of $9.95 to an "Adult Check" service (Levy 54). Also the Child Pornography Protection Act has been passed. It is to combat the use of computer technology that enables a pornographer to alter a picture of a child to make it seem as though the child engaged in an explicit sex act (Quittner 74). Rulings about child pornography have existed for years and will always enacted whether it is in the cyber universe or in magazine and movies. State laws are also being made against smut found on the inter net. New York passed a law making information found on the Internet that would be illegal if published in a book or magazine, illegal. People who violate the law could receive up to four years in jail (Rosen

     Today, in the 1990's, citizens in our society are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction. From the hate lyrics of Gun's 'N Roses to the satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit graphical content of today's movies, the issue is how much society is going to permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line. The freedom of speech has always been considered a right, but that doesn't mean that you can shout, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The real question is whether such material is harmful or dangerous to our society.

The pornification (or alternatively pornographication) of the social world has created lasting effects in the lives of people that they must deal with every day (Dines 1998, p. 164). Pornification is the process by which the social and cultural world is sexualised. This occurs through the expansion of media technology and the pornography industry, as well as changes in media regulations and restrictions which allow pornographic imagery to intrude into public spaces (Tyler 2011, p. 79). This essay will offer explanations for why the pornification of the social world is occurring, how the phenomenon differs from a freedom of expression issue and is instead considered a sociological issue, what consequences and harm arise from these explanations, and will offer social measures that can be adopted in order to deal with the issue. Pornification has occurred in almost every realm of the social world, including in its unaltered form on the Internet, social media, marketing, advertising, music, fashion, sport, and art. However, this expansion of easily accessible pornified content is a stark and confronting challenge for our social world.

The law defined obscene material as writing with no value of any kind and with the purpose to ensue scandalous and lusty thoughts in its readers. These standards for was determined in Miller v. California, a work is obscene and unfit for publishing if it is “utterly without socially redeeming value” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” when taken as a whole. Before in these kinds of court cases, the prosecutor could extract sections of the writing to determine its obscenity as

This paper will cover censorship in film with its main focus in the United States. It will cover the progress of film censorship and how it has varied throughout the country as well as state to state. The reader will discover how film censorship has changed with society and can be a resemblance of society at a certain point in time. Important cases and lawsuits will be covered as well, enabling the reader to understand why and how certain laws were created and questioned.

History has provided us with major reasons to limit and regulate obscenity in America. For example does obscenity lead to an increased likely hood of criminal activity or anti-cultural norms in society? If so at what point do these issues begin to manifest and how should government regulate this narrowly? There is a problem here though according to Brandenburg obscenity in and of itself does not directly incite lawless action and fails to meet the aforementioned Brandenburg test. The court has attempted to circumnavigate this problem by using the redeeming social importance standard. This states that obscenity is up for regulation if it fails to serve a purpose benefiting society even if that disagrees with

The constitutionality of the two provisions enacted to protect minors from “indecent” and “patent offensive” on the internet were at issue. The District Court held that the statute truncates the ‘freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The CDA didn’t define ‘indecent’ and left out any mandates that the ‘patently offensive material’ lacks values. It applies to the entire universe of the internet/cyberspace. The CDC lacks the precision that the First Amendment of the Constitution requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In a nutshell, in order to deny minors access to potentially explicit and obscene speech, it would also keep a greater amount of speech from adults that have a constitutional right to receive. The CDA’s ‘indecent transmission’ and ‘patently offensive display’ provisions abridge ‘the freedom of speech’ which is protected by the Frist Amendment of the Constitution. There have been other cases that have had difficulties with having a conclusive definition of word obscenity. For example, the Courts restated its definition in Miller v California (1973). It substituted a three part detailed test to be used by each locality- the so called ‘community standards’ test to help define the

The Constitution of the United States has the first ten amendments dedicated to its citizens call the Bill of Rights. In the First amendment, it protects the freedom of speech and four other important rights. It prevents the government from influencing what the public can view and know. In the view of pornography and obscenity, it creates a line from art and photography and obscenity. Also, it allows the government to interfere with things that could harm the public, in this case, the young.  Although the government is involved, they are only involved with the goal of protecting the citizens from harm. The three rules in identifying if something is pornographic and/or obscene is rather simple and is a combination of all past tests. The

            One of the unique challenges to regulating or settling on the appropriate way to regulate is that there is no concrete definition of pornography. While law enforcement bodies such as the police, prosecutors and judges, are accustomed to dealing with issues that are exclusive to the United States, the Internet is a worldwide community with servers and members coming

“Never before in history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions” (qtd in “Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse”). The problem addressed in the quote by the U.S. Department of Justice is pornography, a 10 billion dollar industry, has made its way from discreet taboo to something that is today considered acceptable and even common. With the internet being such a common tool, it is no surprise that there is easy access to sexually explicit material. The widespread accessibility and usage of pornography has changed people’s outlook on the normality of watching such sexually explicit material, and