Difference between revisions of "Liberalism and pornography"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[File:EarlWarren.jpg|thumb|left|170px|Eisenhower later in his life referred to his nomination of Warren to the Supreme Court as one of his biggest mistakes.<ref name=Ike/>]] | [[File:EarlWarren.jpg|thumb|left|170px|Eisenhower later in his life referred to his nomination of Warren to the Supreme Court as one of his biggest mistakes.<ref name=Ike/>]] | ||
| − | Per the conclusion of Brennan on the ruling in concurrence with Warren and Fortas:<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/413/ Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)]. ''Justia''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref> | + | Per the conclusion of Brennan on the ruling in concurrence with Warren and Fortas:<ref name=Memoirs v. Massachusetts text>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/413/ Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)]. ''Justia''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref> |
{{cquote|1. Under the test in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, as elaborated in subsequent cases, each of three elements must independently be satisfied before a book can be held obscene: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value. P. 383 U. S. 418. | {{cquote|1. Under the test in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, as elaborated in subsequent cases, each of three elements must independently be satisfied before a book can be held obscene: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value. P. 383 U. S. 418. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
3. On the premise, not assessed here, that it has the requisite prurient appeal, is patently offensive, and has only a modicum of social importance, evidence of commercial exploitation of the book for the sake of prurient appeal to the exclusion of all other values.}} | 3. On the premise, not assessed here, that it has the requisite prurient appeal, is patently offensive, and has only a modicum of social importance, evidence of commercial exploitation of the book for the sake of prurient appeal to the exclusion of all other values.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | Justice Douglas wrote:<ref name=Memoirs v. Massachusetts text/> | ||
| + | {{cquote|1. Since the First Amendment forbids censorship of expression of ideas not linked with illegal action, Fanny Hill cannot be proscribed. Pp. 383 U. S. 426; 383 U. S. 427-433. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. Even under the prevailing view of the Roth test the book cannot be held to be obscene in view of substantial evidence showing that it has literary, historical, and social importance. P. 383 U. S. 426. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. Since there is no power under the First Amendment to control mere expression, the manner in which a book that concededly has social worth is advertised and sold is irrelevant. P. 383 U. S. 427. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. There is no basis in history for the view expressed in Roth that "obscene" speech is "outside" the protection of the First Amendment. Pp. 383 U. S. 428-431. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 5. No interest of society justifies overriding the guarantees of free speech and press and establishing a regime of censorship. Pp. 383 U.S. 431-433.}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 16:33, February 15, 2021
Pornography is considered harmful, addictive, and linked to sex trafficking.[1][2]
History of legality
The United States Supreme Court when liberal California RINO Earl Warren was Chief Justice was known for its consistent liberal rulings, typically with Warren joined by Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, and William Brennan in creating a majority that would always decide a case no matter what the other four justices thought.
Memoirs v. Massachusetts
- For a more detailed treatment, see Memoirs v. Massachusetts.
In the Supreme Court ruling for Memoirs v. Massachusetts, Justices Brennan, Fortas, Brennan, Black, Douglas, and Stewart made up the majority opinion that expanded the legality of pornographic "literature", protecting them unless they had "no literary value".[4] The three dissents came from Justices Byron White, Tom Clark, and John Harlan II.
Per the conclusion of Brennan on the ruling in concurrence with Warren and Fortas:Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
| “ | 1. Under the test in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, as elaborated in subsequent cases, each of three elements must independently be satisfied before a book can be held obscene: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value. P. 383 U. S. 418.
2. Since a book cannot be proscribed as obscene unless found to be utterly without redeeming social value, the Supreme Judicial Court erroneously interpreted the federal constitutional standard. Pp. 383 U. S. 419-420. 3. On the premise, not assessed here, that it has the requisite prurient appeal, is patently offensive, and has only a modicum of social importance, evidence of commercial exploitation of the book for the sake of prurient appeal to the exclusion of all other values. |
” |
Justice Douglas wrote:Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
| “ | 1. Since the First Amendment forbids censorship of expression of ideas not linked with illegal action, Fanny Hill cannot be proscribed. Pp. 383 U. S. 426; 383 U. S. 427-433.
2. Even under the prevailing view of the Roth test the book cannot be held to be obscene in view of substantial evidence showing that it has literary, historical, and social importance. P. 383 U. S. 426. 3. Since there is no power under the First Amendment to control mere expression, the manner in which a book that concededly has social worth is advertised and sold is irrelevant. P. 383 U. S. 427. 4. There is no basis in history for the view expressed in Roth that "obscene" speech is "outside" the protection of the First Amendment. Pp. 383 U. S. 428-431. 5. No interest of society justifies overriding the guarantees of free speech and press and establishing a regime of censorship. Pp. 383 U.S. 431-433. |
” |
References
- ↑ Let’s Talk About Porn. Is It As Harmless As Society Says It Is?. Fight The New Drug. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
- ↑ Westen, John-Henry (January 28, 2015). Want to Stop Sex Trafficking? Look to America’s Porn Addiction. Huffington Post. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Eisenhower's 'Mistakes'. The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
- ↑ Memoirs v. Massachusetts 1966. encyclopedia.com. Retrieved February 15, 2021.