Using Examples, Explain the Difference Between Obscene and Indecent Materials.

Although we, as citizens of this country, are guaranteed freedom of speech and press by the first amendment, we are encouraged to “watch what we say”. In order to avoid unnecessary violence and to keep people from being offended, it is recommended the certain things be censored. While many may look at this censorship as a well-needed percussion it can reversely be seen as going against one's first amendment rights, in itself causing controversy.

What is pornography? According to the dictionary pornography means “Obscene writings, drawings, photographs”. Yet, many people disagree with what is consider to be pornography in society today. Susan Brownmiller is a feminist activist who wrote an essay “ Lets Put Pornography Back in the Closet” argues that pornography should be not be protect by the 1st Amendment or be allowed into society. Meanwhile, Susan Jacoby a writer of “ A First Amendment Junkie” disagrees with Brownmiller because she believes that it’s everyone’s right and that society should not be able to censor pornography. Should society let the government censor pornography just because we may not approve this type of act. I agree with both of the writer’s that pornography should

Although Television has been censored since its creation throughout the last decade it has started to become more flexible with allowing explicit language. Cable television such as HBO do not have to follow the rules of the FCC because those are channels that customers pay a premium price to be able to access these channel. Other channels like Comedy Central, TNT, or FX do not have the same freedom. Why is that? Comedy Central is known as a channel that never airs anything that children can really watch. South Park is rated MA, for mature audiences. Workaholics is a show that portrays three men’s lives who go through many shenanigans, smoke used, and get into trouble. The FCC should allow these shows to start using more explicit language and to not bleep the words.

Sally Mann’s child photography should not be censored due to other people’s views or distaste for her child photography. She has the right to express her love for her children and herself through the arts. As a mother, she experienced a significant amount of backlash which is a common narrative in current society. By censoring her form of expression of her kids, we are restricting the mother’s right over her children. As a matter of fact, a large negative criticism of Sally Mann’s photos is that many consider her child photography to be obscene when in fact it is not obscene. According to a court case called Miller vs. California, art is only considered obscene if it meets all of the following criteria: 1) the average person finds the art lustful with prurient interest, 2) the art is offensive and displays any sexual conduct that is defined by the state law, and 3) the art lacks artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. Sally Mann’s child photography does not meet the criteria since the average person does not find her work to be salacious, the art displays no sexual conduct or penetration in any form, and her work lacks no artistic value. In fact, her art displayed a significant amount of artistic value due to the controversy and her way of challenging the hegemonic ideals of society. Thus, her work should not be censored because it is not considered obscene in the state law.

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

The reason the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine couldn’t work was because the facilities weren’t equal and blacks were still being discriminated against. Rosa Parks demonstrated exactly why the doctrine wouldn’t work. After the doctrine was removed the change helped the blacks gain the same rights as the white man. This decision also brought the Nation forward as a whole.

To begin with, there are three types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, libel, and slander. Obscenity is "anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence" (Freedom of Speech, 2003). Despite the fact that the definition of obscenity has changed throughout the years, Congress, in general, has reached a consensus in determining that obscenity covers anything that is directed towards or involves youths, including child pornography. For example, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld, in Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York, that the Board of Education did not have the right to ban schools from carrying books such as Oliver Twist and The

At the end of the hearing on June 21st, 1973, the court ruled that while obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, various states have different regulations for the sale and distribution of certain material. The state of California has regulations and criteria for this form of expression, but it is a lot of steps to go through to get the

As US citizens, we should be appalled that such practices are allowed. Not only are we deprived of rights, but we are subjected to the control of others. If I choose to go home and turn on my TV to see a half-clad woman and hear frequent vulgarities, then by all means, I, as a citizen of this free country, should be allowed to do so. Who is to determine what is “degenerate” or “depraved”? What should qualify a person to become a censor?

“Obscene: so excessive as to be offensive” (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). This is the way the Webster dictionary defines obscene. How do you? Some say obscene is vulgar; others say the best way to describe obscene is through disgust. No matter how it is thought of, obscene material is everywhere in society. Television is becoming more liberal, magazines are less edited, and music is more abrasive. At some point, the public must put its foot down and demand censorship in order to keep decency in the world.

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

One important point to remember is that while the First Amendment is specifically designed to protect offensive or controversial speech (because who needs to protect speech that no one disagrees with?), it does not protect libelous nor obscene material. Obscene material is defined as that which community standards finds offensive.[ii] So one question to consider is, within which community does the Internet live?

For many years there has been a lot of arguments about the ethical and morality of pornography. pornography is defined as the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement. When it coms down to pornography, people have different opinions about it. Some people might find it moral because it gives them pleasure and it satisfies them physically. some individuals see it as a form of art that describes the figure of a human body in an artistic form. Others see it as immoral because it harms and degrades an individual. Personally I believe that it all depends how pornography is conducted and how we respond to it. It can be morally healthy that we like it because it makes us happy, such as it helps with your marriage relationship in intimacy, and it can be immoral when it is used in an unhealthy that we do not like it because hurts an innocent person.

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

The parameters of the term censorship have been changed and manipulated very much over the years. Television and movie ratings have become more lenient against violence and indiscretion because these things are now seen as entertainment. Is this appropriate for our youth? Should children be exposed to these images so early on? How does censorship in the media affect adolescents? Children are the future of our society and need to have some understanding of real world occurrences. Ultimately, censorship can only be determined by the parents. The media cannot filter every bit of controversial images. What rights does the media have in this situation? How are their First Amendment rights applied here? As an aspiring political science