Hustler Magazine, Inc. V. Frequency

The jury in Alabama agreed with Sullivan and found that the libelous action was in breach of Constitutional protections of speech and press. The jury in the circuit court awarded Sullivan five hundred thousand dollars in damages. This was the initial ruling against the New York Times who had lost. Sullivan had claimed he was libeled in the advertisement called Heed Their Rising Voices. In the libel action claim Sullivan the third paragraph in the advertisement read as follows “In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang “My country tis of thee” on state capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school and, truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested by

III. Facts: In Hustler v. Falwell a dispute arose when Hustler Magazine, a a magazine that circulates nationwide featured a parody of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur. The inside front cover of the magazine presented interviews with celebrities who described their “first time.” One of the parodies belonged to Jerry Falwell, a nationally acclaimed minister who was featured as describing his “first time” with his mother when they were both intoxicated from drinking Campari Liqueur. While the interviews with the celebrities contained a double sexual reference, it was evident in the end that the ads were referring to the first time the celebrities had tried Campari Liqueur. However, after the magazine was accessible to the public, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine and its publisher for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At trial court the judge dismissed the invasion of privacy claim and then sent the case to the jury where they ruled Hustler Magazine on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded Jerry Falwell $150,000. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court level on appeal by the petitioner, Jerry Falwell.

It today’s society, pornography is a fast-growing epidemic that is evident in families, marriages, and teenage lifestyles. Supporters of pornography claim that it can be used as a tool to teach students about sex education. However, critics claim that pornography is unjust, influential, and dehumanizing. Pornography is unjust because it has the potential to break down intimate relationships and marriages. It can also have negative effects on children in particular young boys. More and more young boy’s minds are being influenced by pornography which is leading to misinterpretations about how to have a healthy sexual relationship. Most importantly, pornography dehumanizes women and it exploits children. Women and children are being victimized for the sheer pleasure of someone viewing pornography.

From the “No” aspect written by Michael Seto, Alexandra Maric, and Howard E. Barbaree, they argue that 1) there is enough evidence any where proving that pornography is the cause of rape or rape crimes. They do not feel that it proves that men objectify and dehumanize women or that violent pornography desensitizes men to rape, 2) Knowing the definition of pornography and understanding the different versions help to identify where the issue lies, and 3) there are causal models that link pornography and aggression.

The plaintiff, the State of California, contended that the distribution of obscene material was not protected by the First Amendment. The soliciting and sale of ‘hardcore pornography’ should not be allowed to be mailed out, especially if the receivers did not sign up for the advertisements.

The United States Constitution gives the American people their freedom so to speak. The Constitution outlines many things that other countries don’t offer their citizens such as freedom of speech, religion and the press. The First Amendment of the Constitutions guarantees that the United States people have rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion without the interference of the government. The Bible states in Deuteronomy 17: 18-19, “Now it shall come about when he sit on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him, and he shall read it, all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes”. These laws have been called into question on several different occasions. However, like anything else, there are some stipulations with these laws. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did shed some insight on the laws and how they can be interpreted. This paper will discuss the criminal statute issues, issues with the provisions of the Constitution, and the status of criminal prosecution for transmission of pornography over the internet. With the hopes of having a clearer understanding of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

This paper addresses and analyzes the past, present, and future state of the FCC’s position on indecency. Section I chronicles the history of the FCC’s indecency regulation and details the state of the law today. Next, Section II considers current issues surrounding the FCC’s indecency policy, including Trump’s aforementioned

Gail Dines’s book Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (Beacon Press, 2011) is about how porn is affecting our lives and why it's presence is damaging to our sexual freedom. Her point of view is just one point of view but it's very thought provoking and it makes you question a lot of things. A lot of things that you wouldn't generally think of. Some may not agree with her point-of-view because of her “anti-porn” agenda, but in this book Dine makes a fair amount of valid points.

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

Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. versus Free Speech Coalition, et al. (2002), the Supreme Court upheld the judgment because the expanded definition of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 contravenes the provision under the First Amendment. Consequently, the appellant feared that leaving that expanded definition unchallenged in the Supreme Court curtails freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court interpretation became necessary as the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 led to the plaintiff’s misinterpretation of the regulation or deliberate distortion thereof to advance unlawful ends. Instead, the merit of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 bans unethical materials depicting children and not just about any pornographic material.

Ethics Pornography is a social problem and is a commodity brought into existence by certain characteristics of a highly developed civilization. The problem with pornography is that any form of censorship or downplay cannot solve it. It is difficult to draw the line between ones right to express their ideas and or opinions or sexuality

Pornography has many obvious as well as not-so-obvious consequences within society. Pornography has the power to ruin marriages, destroy trust, excite a person to the point of sexual crime, or create an unhealthy view of human sexuality and the opposite sex.” (WowEssays, Pornography)

The Supreme Court lifted a 1996 act banning virtual child pornography. The six to three ruling, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, says the law violates First Amendment freedom of speech rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States of America. Although many free speech advocates are shouting victory, many citizens across the country are lamenting over the loss in the fight against child pornography.

In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.

“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