Obscenity And Pornography

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.

the case of R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2 is regarded as one of the most controversial cases in the supreme court and got a lot of media attention and has led to Canadians all across the country to take into account the seriousness of child pornography and its harms. In this case, analysis I shall review the case R v. Sharpe, [2001] and consider the legal facts, the judicial reasoning and analysis as well as talk about the legal history of this case along with its socio and political implications it has had. In the beginning of a case commentary, it is important to state all the facts and terms, John Robin Sharpe is a British Columbia resident who admitted that he enjoyed child pornography and felt that he was entitled

A case by Roth tried to challenge the idea regarding the nature of obscenity whether it was a variable or a constant matter. Obscenity in any case took many dimensions when it came to matters relating to the material and the contented they contained. Roth challenged the Supreme Court that obscenity was not constitutional and there it needed to be given a different approach. He argued that this term did not have a specific meaning and it could take any shape based on circumstances.

     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.

There is more to obscenity than one thinks. I learned about Roth v United States (1957) and Miller v California (1973) and the tests created as a result of each obscenity case. My understanding of obscenity has expanded because originally, I thought obscenity was just pornography and taboo but actually it is anything that is consider obscene such as specific behavior, language and images. I think nudity is less dangerous than I originally thought because nudity is not sex, even though the majority of the people do associate the two together for some reason. Thanks to the Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1991) case, I have a better understanding of nudity since that case shows both sides towards nudity. Thanks to my changed perception, I now watch

In the United States, pornography is considered to be neither legal nor illegal. With the exception of child pornography, there are no laws regarding the sell, distribution, creation, nor purchase of pornography. Despite studies finding it to be “degrading and detrimental to society”, Congress is not able to regulate pornography. One of the reasons is the current misinterpretation of church and state. Congress is not able to use religious standards of morality to judge obscenity.

In the censorship arena, there are variety of controversial, hateful and inappropriate topics debated for subjectivity. Yet, child pornography became the “leading rationale for censorship” and was outlawed in 1982 by New York vs. Ferber (Mintcheva, p.167; Adler, p.228). Children are one of the most exposed demographics in society because they don’t have autonomy and are reliant on adults. Thus, the child pornography law aimed to prevent sexual abuse and molestation. Amy Adler, contributor to Censoring Culture, argues that child pornography law is self-indulgent and further exacerbates the problem by bringing it into the public eye (Adler, p. 229). She also cites taking on the “gaze of the pedophile” as part of the problem. By stooping to the level of a sexual predator, courts and policy makers are making the problem worse. In an arena like the arts, where nudity and vulnerability are king, this controversy over what is pornography is especially delicate.

Examining how laws may have changed or been influenced by the media's representations of sexuality is where the paper will begin. Certainly one of the side effects of the Internet is the increase of the more marginal sexualities and sexualities whose moral character is questioned or contended. The increased presence of child pornography online has changed laws in society. The penalties for purchasing, distributing, creating, and keeping child pornography are exceptional high. The penalties include public embarrassment, chemical

Pornogrophy is currently as legal in the United States and Canada as alcohol and tylenol, but should it be? Firstly, we must define what pornogrophy constitutes, as it can be seen as anything from a raunchy adult comedy to Penthouse Magazine. It seems as though many definitions of porogrophy use terms like that of “explicit” sex, but that is only a surface-level conclusion. Within Sociology, pornogrophy is defined, typically, in three ways: Functional, Genre, and Labelling. Functional definitions of pornogrophy put forward that pornogrophy is anything used for the intentional purpose of sexual arousal (Goode, 1997). However, this is noted as a broad statement, as even the likes of romantic novels could be concidered as pornogrophy if an individual uses it to become aroused. Genre definitions suggest that pornography is described as a product created for the purpose of sexual arousal. However, this also causes issues in definition, as products like that of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue may be seen as intentional sexual arousal and also simple photography. Labelling definitions suggest that pornography is anything that a community deem as obscene (Goode, 1997). This view is the most commonly supported view in law, as even the Canadian Criminal Code defines what is considered obscenity under Section 163. Again, however, we have to question this view because it only takes into account what individuals tolerate other individuals seeing and not what they themselves

According to the1973 case of Miller v. California, material is obscene if all three of the following conditions are met:

Adult Americans are still free—in most localities—to choose for themselves whether or not to procure and use pornographic materials. And while there is room for question concerning some of its alleged benefits, the assertion that porn's use leads to sex crime is soundly refuted by the fact that the large majority of those who use porn do not engage in antisocial behavior. (It's also difficult to take

In an era where internet and social media dominate, there must be a consideration of legal issues concerning privacy rights. But where is the line drawn when it may be associated with the sexual exploitation of youth? R. v. Barabash, 2015 SCC 29 [Barabash] is a circumstantial case that centres on concerns of privacy rights involving private use, child pornography, as well as regarding the establishments of exploitation and consent. Barabash involved two fourteen year old girls who were runaways, dependant on drugs and involved in prostitution. According to Statistics Canada (2008) at the time of this case, youth aged 12 to 14 were twice as likely to experience sexual violence then that of young adults, this statistic was even higher if the victim is female (Sexual Assault, para. 4). While they were staying with two significantly older men they were involved in sexual activity that was videotaped and photographed. Under s.163.1(2) of the Criminal Code the men were charged for making child pornography as well as the older man was charged with possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4). While the trial judge found all elements of the offences were established, the accused raised in defence the private use exception outlined in R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 [Sharpe], which the judge failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. Through theoretical and legal frameworks this paper will analyze the defence of private use through objective analysis with reference to

            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