How many think that the American obscenity standards are ludicrous?

Question

How many think that the American obscenity standards are ludicrous?

I know that I do!

Answer 1

The United States has constitutional protection for freedom of speech, which is not interpreted to protect every utterance. The Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

The legal term of obscenity is usually denoted to classify a distinction between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access versus those that should be denied. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in, and the access to that same permitted material—which in the areas of sexual materials ranges between the permitted areas of erotic art (which are can be stated to be represented by usually "classic nude forms" representations including Michelangelo's David statue) and the less appreciated commercial pornography. The legal distinction between artistic nudity, and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) that are deemed as "protected forms of speech" versus "obscene acts", which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, are usually separated by the predominant culture appreciation regarding such. The accepted areas are deemed to fit those sexual acts regarded as "normal", while the obscene areas are considered to be deviant or unworthy of public access. For example, in the United States currently, images of mere human nudity and single couple heterosexual vaginal-only penetration are listed as protected speech, while images showing anal and homosexual penetration are presently not. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subjective to the local federal districts inside the United States and the local moral standards at the time.

In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that—not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the "Miller test", below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally "obscene" in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and "community standards" has created significant controversy in the legal community. (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996))

Even at the federal level, there does NOT exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to classified as "obscene" outside of the legally determined court cases.

Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly "what is obscene", famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . ."[1]

However, in the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene - and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote,

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[2]

In U.S. legal texts, therefore, the question of "obscenity" presently always refers to this "Miller test obscenity". The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use (U.S. v. Extreme Associates) or other transmission of obscenity, but that it is unconstitutional to pass laws concerning the personal possession of obscenity per se. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intra-state issues are for the most part still governed by state law. "Obscene articles... are generally prohibited entry" to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[3]

At present, the only legally protected areas of explicit sexual areas of commercial pornography are 1) "mere nudity" as upheld in "Jenkins v. Georgia , 418 U.S. 153 (1974)" whereby the film "Carnal Knowledge" is deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced in Miller and appellant's conviction therefore contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments. As declared by the judge at trial "The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller's standards)." This was upheld time and again in later cases including "Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville FL, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)" whereby the city of Jackonville stated such film showing was a punishable offense for a drive-in movie theater to exhibit films containing nudity, when the screen is visible from a public street or place. The law was determined to be invalid as it was an infringement of First Amendment rights of the movie producer and theatre owners and 2) single male to female vaginal-only penetration that does NOT show the actual ejaculation of sperm, sometimes referred to as "soft-core" pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.

In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, Calif. in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual sperm being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled "American ******* 13", "Gag Factor 15", "Gag Factor 18" and "Filthy Things 6". The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 - "Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution") against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of JM Productions' films in question. The case is schedule for Grand Jury review on July 10th 2007 whereby the case will either be advanced to actual trial or dismissed.

Answer 2

lol.. I think it is ludicrous. there are no obscenity standards in the US. it is based on "community values". one thing in california can be labeled not obscene in california while the same thing can be a 15 year jail sentance in alabama. most countries have no hangups over nude people and sex. In the US you can watch a movie where a dude kills 700 people in a 2 hour movie with a chainsaw but 2 ppl haveing sex needs to be sold behind a counter under lock and key..lol .. europeans ..and just about everyone else except the muslims laugh at us about that..

EDIT- here the legal definition of obscenity

"For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

vary vague...and vary's from community to community as to what meets these terms. someone running a porn site can be both in or out of these standards depending on the community that is viewing. The porn video industry has the same problem. some postal inspector in the bible belt orders a video illegal there but that same video is totally legal in california where it is produced. they actually keep a list of zipcodes they will not ship to to avoid prosecution... Thats not a standard.. thats called hope your lucky and get a jury thats not devout bible fanatics...

Answer 3

Before the President was elected there was already a time table to withdrawal from Iraq. Before he was elected there was already health care for children. If your child was sick you could walk into any ER and they could not refuse care. There was already CHIP(Children's Health Insurance Program). Before he was elected there was life saving research being funded and taking place. If you are talking about stem cells then hundreds of companies were already doing amazing things with ADULT stem cells. If you are referring to embryonic stem cells the reason that the government had to step in was that there was so little potential that companies were seeing it as a black hole for their money. What has the current president actually done that has made a marked improvement for the entire country? It sounds to me like you need to be more open minded. I am not suggesting that you become a republican but at least keep an honest view about the president.

Answer 4

I think that Preachers Wife might at least agree that obesity, when seen naked in a porno film but be considered obscene by any community standards :)

*sorry, just taking the mickey outta ya hehehe*

Answer 5

Do we have obscenity laws? I remember when hearing the word "*****" in a J. Geils song it was shocking. Now we can see and hear anything that comes across our media. It seems nothing is obscene any more and everything is common fare.

Answer 6

I think it's ludicrous when killing and violence, which ARE obscene behaviors, are worshiped in our society while people FREAK OUT about sexuality issues. Twisted.

Answer 7

I'm in agreement with u totally,some of the movies are vile ,the way people talk in this county,some in my own family, is out to lunch,even the way they act towards each other,and people they don't even know,just because they are different or they don't understand,it takes but a miniute to try and understand,and where are all these perverts comming from,some of them act like its an ok thing to be..........ok I'm done

Answer 8

It's true in America obscenity's are far too acceptable. But we have freedom of speech an unfortunately that is the down side of it. It really instills alot of negativity in our country. But sadly, it is what sells...

Answer 9

i think that "sex" "porn" "nudity" and things of that nature are way over the line - because of kids,it makes it more appealing at younger ages etc. something is wrong when 11 year old girls want to be strippers when they grow up. i am all for freedom of speech - i love to have sex and cuss. but - i don't want my future children growing up thinking it's cool to be a whore. the chatline commercials that come on tv at night - they are horrible.

basically,i just think things should be shielded from kids a bit more,parents need to try and keep kids "kids" for as long as they can - loss of innocence is a tragic thing.

Answer 10

i don`t honestly know what the standereds are, but i do know that just about everybody has a differant opinion of what comes across as obcene to them. so wouldn`t it be logical that some small group of people couldn`t set the standerds for everyone? thats big brother for you tho!

Answer 11

Its a really difficult thing to define since it rests in the subjectivity of the person viewing it.