Difference between revisions of "Obscenity" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 3: Line 3:
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
  
 +
'''Obscenity''' is either the state of being lewd and indecent or something that is lewd or indecent. The definition of obscenity varies across cultures as do the laws regarding it. Because the concept of obscenity is often ill-defined, it can be used as a [[political]] tool to try to restrict freedom of expression. Thus, the definition of obscenity can be a [[civil liberties]] issue.
  
 +
==Definition==
 +
Obscenity (in [[Latin]] ''obscenus'', meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable," possibly derived from ''ob caenum'', literally "from filth"). The term is most often used in a [[law|legal]] context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent [[sexual morality]] of the time.
  
−
'''''Obscenity''''' (in [[Latin]] ''obscenus'', meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable," possibly derived from ''ob caenum'', literally "from filth"). The term is most often used in a [[law|legal]] context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent [[sexual morality]] of the time.
+
Despite its long formal and informal use with a [[sexual]] connotation, the word still retains the meanings of "inspiring disgust" and even "inauspicious; ill-omened," as in such uses as "obscene [[profit]]s," "the obscenity of [[war]]," and the like. It can simply be used to mean [[profanity]], or it can mean anything that is [[taboo]], indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting.
  
−
Despite its long formal and informal use with a [[sexual]] connotation, the word still retains the meanings of "inspiring disgust" and even "inauspicious; ill-omened," as in such uses as "obscene [[profit]]s," "the obscenity of [[war]]," and the like. It can simply be used to mean [[profanity]], or it can mean anything that is [[taboo]], indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting.
+
The definition of obscenity differs from [[culture]] to culture, between [[community|communities]] within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities.  Many cultures have produced [[law]]s to define what is considered to be obscene, and [[censorship]] is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions, usually including, but not limited to [[pornography|pornographic]] material.
 +
 
 +
== In Global Culture==
 +
Various countries have different standings on the types of materials that they as legal bodies permit their citizens to have access to and disseminate among their locale populations.  The set of these countries permissable content vary widely accordingly with some having extreme punishment up to and including execution for members who violate their restrictions, as in the case of Iran where the current laws against pornography now include death sentences for those  convicted of producing pornography.
  
−
The definition of obscenity differs from [[culture]] to culture, between
+
==In Global Law==
−
[[community|communities]] within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities.  Many cultures have produced [[law]]s to define what is considered to be obscene, and [[censorship]] is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions, usually including, but not limited to [[pornography|pornographic]] material.
+
Again, because social standards on obscenity vary across cultures, the treatment of obscenity before the law also varies.
−
Because the concept of obscenity is often ill-defined, it can be used as a
 
−
[[political]] tool to try to restrict freedom of expression.
 
−
Thus, the definition of obscenity can be a [[civil liberties]] issue.
 
  
−
== United States obscenity law ==
+
=== United States ===
 
The [[United States]] has constitutional protection for [[freedom of speech]], which is not interpreted to protect every utterance. The [[U.S. Supreme Court|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 publically accessible, though has at times encompassed other subject matters such as spoken and written language that can be publically transmitted and received by the general public.
 
The [[United States]] has constitutional protection for [[freedom of speech]], which is not interpreted to protect every utterance. The [[U.S. Supreme Court|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 publically accessible, though has at times encompassed other subject matters such as spoken and written language that can be publically 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 penetation 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.  
 
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 penetation 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) which all but guarantees that something which 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))
+
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) which all but guarantees that something which 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 . . ."<ref>''Jacobellis v. Ohio'', 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964).</ref>
  
−
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.
+
====Miller test====
 +
The '''Miller test''' is the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]'s test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled [[obscene]], in which case it is not protected by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] and can be prohibited.
  
−
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 . . ."<ref>''Jacobellis v. Ohio'', 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964).</ref>
+
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case ''[[Miller v. California]]''<ref>*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/413/15.html Text of the decision and dissents], from findlaw.com. Retrieved August 20, 2007.</ref>. It has three parts:
  
−
However, in the [[United States]], the 1973 ruling of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in [[Miller v. California]] established a three-tiered [[Miller test|test]] to determine what was obscene - and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the [[First Amendment]].  
+
*Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the [[wiktionary:prurient|prurient]] interest,
 +
*Whether the work depicts/describes, in a [[wiktionary:patently|patently]] offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
 +
*Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious [[Literature|literary]], [[art]]istic, [[Politics|political]], and [[Science|scientific]] value.
  
−
Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] wrote, <blockquote>
+
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
−
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.<ref> ''Miller v. California'', 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1972).</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
  
−
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]].<ref>U.S. Customs and Border Protection Form 6059B, January 2004 [http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/sample_declaration_form.xml]</ref>
+
For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in [[Mobile, Alabama]], may differ from what offends the average person in [[New York City]].  The relevant community, however, is not defined. Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the [[Hicklin test]], stemming from the English precedent.
  
−
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 Jackonvill 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 whereby the sexual act and its fulfillment are merely implied to happen rather than is explicitly shown.
+
Some critics of obscenity law argue that the existence of Miller proves that federal obscenity laws are in fact not defined, and thus unenforceable and legally dubious. <ref name="No Such Thing">{{cite web|last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= | date=February 1996 |url=http://www.spectacle.org/296/obscene.html |title=There is no Such Thing as Obscenity |format= |work= |pages= |publisher=The Ethical Spectacle |accessdate= August 20|accessyear= 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Huston |first=William A.  |authorlink= |coauthors= | date= |url=http://www.nexusjournal.org/2005obscenity/75-82.pdf |title=Under Color of Law: Obscenity vs. the First Amendment |format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]] |work= |pages=75-82 |publisher= |accessdate= August 20|accessyear= 2007 }}</ref>
−
 
 
−
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 Bukkake 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.  At this time, the case remains in the pre-trial phase.
 
−
 
 
−
=== Obscenity v. Indecency===
 
−
{{main|Indecency}}
 
−
The differentiation between [[indecent]] and [[obscene]] material is a particularly difficult one, and a contentious [[First Amendment]] issue that has not fully been settled. Similarly, the level of offense (if any) generated by a [[profanity|profane]] word or phrase depends on region, context, and audience. 
 
−
 
 
−
===Non image based obscenity cases in the USA===
 
−
While most of the cases of obscenity in the United States are limited to actual images, there have been many other cases whereby the mere thought of acts that are considered unacceptable for consumption by the general public have been deemed to be obscene and thus illegal, despite having no pictures at all in such determined "obscene" material. 
 
−
 
 
−
The classification of "obscene" and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text only stories starting with "Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897)" which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the 'Chicago Dispatch,' containing "obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials," which was later upheld in both "A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Com. of Mass., 383 U.S. 413 (1966)" whereby the "Fanny Hill"  written by John Cleland about 1760, was judged to be obscene in a proceeding that put on the book itself on trial rather than its publisher and "Kaplan v. California , 413 U.S. 115 (1973)" whereby the court most famously determined that "Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content." 
 
−
 
 
−
In September 2005 a further attack on the printed text came as an [[FBI]] "Anti-Porn Squad" was formed, which has initially targeted for prosecution websites such as Red Rose Stories (www.red-rose-stories.com, now defunct), one of many sites providing text-only fantasy stories. Other sites such as [http://www.beautybound.com BeautyBound], run by [[Midori (author)|Midori]], a prominent [[BDSM]] teacher and author on [[Japanese bondage]], have closed down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
 
−
 
 
−
{{sectstub}}
 
−
 
 
−
=== Past standards ===
 
−
 
 
−
These standards were once used to determine exactly what was obscene. All have been invalidated, overturned, or superseded by the [[Miller Test]].
 
−
 
 
−
* ''Hicklin test:'' the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons. (British common law, cited in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. LR 3 QB 360 - overturned when Michigan tried to outlaw all printed matter that would 'corrupt the morals of youth' in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957))
 
−
* ''Wepplo:'' If material has a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting [[lascivious]] thoughts or arousing lustful desires. (People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal.App.2d Supp. 959, 178 P.2d 853).
 
−
* ''[[Roth Standard]]:'' "Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the [[prurient]] interest." [[Roth v. United States]] 354 U.S. 476 (1957) - overturned by Miller
 
−
* ''[[Jacobellis v. Ohio|Roth-Jacobellis]]:'' "community standards" applicable to an obscenity are national, not local standards. Material is "utterly without redeeming social importance." Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) - famous quote: "I shall not today attempt further to define ''[hardcore pornography]'' ...But I know it when I see it."
 
−
* ''[[Memoirs v. Massachusetts|Roth-Jacobellis-Memoirs Test]]:'' Adds that the material possesses "not a modicum of social value."  (A Book Named ''John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure'' v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966))
 
−
 
 
−
Under [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC]] rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air [[indecent material]] between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.: language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or [[excretory]] organs or activities (indecency is less intense than obscenity).
 
−
 
 
−
Many historically important works have been described as obscene,
 
−
or prosecuted under obscenity laws. For example, the works of [[Charles-Pierre Baudelaire]], [[Lenny Bruce]], [[William S. Burroughs]], [[James Joyce]], [[D. H. Lawrence]], [[Henry Miller]], the words "[[piss]]" and "[[erection]]" in the [[United Kingdom|UK]] 1950s premier of [[Samuel Beckett]]'s play ''[[Waiting for Godot]]'', and the [[Marquis de Sade]].
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== United Kingdom obscenity law ==
 
  
 +
=== United Kingdom===
 
The [[Obscene Publications Act]] basically determines the criteria for what material is allowed to be publically accessed and distributed within the member countries of the United Kingdom.
 
The [[Obscene Publications Act]] basically determines the criteria for what material is allowed to be publically accessed and distributed within the member countries of the United Kingdom.
  
−
== Canada obscenity law ==
+
=== Canada ===
−
 
 
 
Section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of "obscenity."  Officially termed as  
 
Section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of "obscenity."  Officially termed as  
 
"Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals",[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V]  the Canadian prohibited class of articles which are to be legally included as "obscene things" is very broad, including text only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or "any other thing whatsoever" — that according to Section 163(8) — has "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence" is deemed to be "obscene" under the current law.   
 
"Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals",[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V]  the Canadian prohibited class of articles which are to be legally included as "obscene things" is very broad, including text only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or "any other thing whatsoever" — that according to Section 163(8) — has "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence" is deemed to be "obscene" under the current law.   
Line 87: Line 57:
 
"Crime comics" are stated to be books that glorify criminal activities and have at least one depiction of such criminal actions of the book's text.
 
"Crime comics" are stated to be books that glorify criminal activities and have at least one depiction of such criminal actions of the book's text.
  
−
== Different Countries ==
+
===Asia===
−
 
+
Norms of obscenity vary across Asia. Relatively liberal countries such as Japan have less stringent obscenity laws whereas such conservative countries as Pakistan have very strict definitions of what is socially acceptable.<ref>[http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/news/article_1297350.php/Pakistani_clerics_threaten_government_with_&quotobscenity%22_clampdown Pakistani clerics threaten government with "obscenity" clampdown] Monsters and Critics. Retrieved August 20, 2007.</ref> In India, for example, some activists have taken to ransacking liquor stores deemed obscene.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4198768.stm Kashmir Women Fight 'Obscenity'] BBC News. Retrieved August 20, 2007.</ref>
−
Various countries have different standings on the types of materials that they as legal bodies permit their citizens to have access to and disseminate among their locale populations.  The set of these countries permissable content vary widely accordingly with some having extreme punishment up to and including execution for members who violate their restrictions, as in the case of Iran where the current laws against pornography now include death sentences for those  convicted of producing pornography.[http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.409897437&par=0]
 
−
 
 
−
==Miller test==
 
−
The '''Miller test''' is the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]'s test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled [[obscene]], in which case it is not protected by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] and can be prohibited.
 
−
 
 
−
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case ''[[Miller v. California]]''<ref>*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/413/15.html Text of the decision and dissents], from findlaw.com</ref>. It has three parts:
 
−
 
 
−
*Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the [[wiktionary:prurient|prurient]] interest,
 
−
*Whether the work depicts/describes, in a [[wiktionary:patently|patently]] offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions <ref>The syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion.</ref> specifically defined by applicable state law,
 
−
*Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious [[Literature|literary]], [[art]]istic, [[Politics|political]], and [[Science|scientific]] value.
 
−
 
 
−
The third condition is also known as the ''(S)LAPS test'' ([Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific). The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
 
−
 
 
−
For legal scholars, several issues are important.  One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard.  What offends the average person in [[Mobile, Alabama]], may differ from what offends the average person in [[New York City]].  The relevant community, however, is not defined.
 
−
 
 
−
Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the [[Hicklin test]], stemming from the English precedent.
 
−
 
 
−
Because it allows for community standards and demands "serious" value, some worried that this test would make it easier to suppress speech and expression.  They pointed out that it replaced a stricter test asking whether the speech or expression was "utterly without redeeming social value"—a much tougher standard than "serious" value.  As used, however, the test generally makes it difficult to outlaw any form of expression. Much [[pornography]] has been successfully argued to have some artistic or literary value.
 
−
 
 
−
Some critics of obscenity law argue that the existence of Miller proves that federal obscenity laws are in fact not defined, and thus unenforceable and legally dubious. <ref name="No Such Thing">{{cite web|last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= | date=February 1996 |url=http://www.spectacle.org/296/obscene.html |title=There is no Such Thing as Obscenity |format= |work= |pages= |publisher=The Ethical Spectacle |accessdate= |accessyear= }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Huston |first=William A.  |authorlink= |coauthors= | date= |url=http://www.nexusjournal.org/2005obscenity/75-82.pdf |title=Under Color of Law: Obscenity vs. the First Amendment |format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]] |work= |pages=75-82 |publisher= |accessdate= |accessyear= }}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ''de facto'' obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in [[Provo, Utah]] took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a ''Movie Buffs'', in [[Utah County, Utah]], a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local [[Marriott Hotel]] were disproportionately large consumers of [[pay-per-view]] [[pornographic]] material, obtaining far more material that way than the store was distributing <ref>{{cite web|last=Egan |first=Timothy |authorlink= |coauthors= | date=2000-10-23 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/technology/23PORN.html?ex=1069736400&en=57fa1d3549a43013&ei=5070 |title=Wall Street Meets Pornography |format= |work= |pages= |publisher=[[New York Times]] |accessdate= |accessyear= }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Egan |first=Timothy |authorlink= |coauthors=Gary Ruskin | date=2000-10-24 |url=http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/commercial-alert/2000/000042.html |title=Wall Street Meets Pornography |format= |work= |pages= |publisher= |accessdate= |accessyear= }}</ref>. (Needless to say, guests in a hotel generally are not representative of full-time residents in the city where the hotel is located: [[Las Vegas]], commonly called "Sin City," has many [[Evangelical]] churches, whose members may disapprove of the people whose gambling and other "sinful" behavior make their city prosperous.){{Fact|date=August 2007}}
 
−
 
 
−
The advent of the [[Internet]] has made this definition more difficult to maintain: as material published on a [[web server]] in one place can be read by a person residing anywhere else, there is a question as to which jurisdiction should apply. The pending case ''[[United States of America v. Extreme Associates]]'' includes some content delivered purely over the Internet and may clarify the situation.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
  
 +
===Africa===
 +
Laws can be similarly oppressive in Africa. Modern music has been condemned as obscene by traditionally minded Africans.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4690050.stm Do you enjoy modern music?] BBC News. Retrieved August 20, 2007.</ref> Conservatives have labeled [[homosexuality]] an obscenity and actively persecute it in Africa.<ref>[http://www.ilga.org/print.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategoryID=1&FileID=778&ZoneID=2& End Homophobia in Africa] ILGA. Retrieved August 20, 2007.</ref>
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
Line 121: Line 67:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
*Henderson, Jeffrey ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=aBsR2BEuAq0C The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy]'' 1991 Oxford University Press ISBN 0195066855
+
* Bahn, Paul. ''Ancient Obscenities: Or Things You Shouldn't Know About the History of Mankind!,'' Nonsuch Publishing (2007). ISBN 1845883500
−
*Judith Silver of Coollawyer.com, "Movie Day at the Supreme Court or 'I Know It When I See It': A History of the Definition of Obscenity," on FindLaw.com.[http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html]
+
* Gurstein, Rochelle. ''The Repeal of Reticence: A History of America's Cultural and Legal Struggles over Free Speech, Obscenity, Sexual Liberation, and Modern Art,'' Hil & Wang Publishers (1998). ISBN 0809016125
−
*Slater, W. J. review of ''[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8299%28197623%2930%3A3%3C291%3ATMMOLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&size=LARGE The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy]'' by Jeffrey Henderson. ''Phoenix'', Vol. 30, No. 3 (Autumn, 1976), pp. 291-293 doi:10.2307/1087300
+
* Harrison, Maureen. ''Obscenity and Pornography Decisions of the United States Supreme Court,'' Excellent (2000). ISBN 1880780232
−
*O'Toole, L. (1998), Pornocopia: Porn, Sex, Technology and Desire, London, Serpent's Tail. ISBN 1-85242-395-1
+
* Henderson, Jeffrey ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=aBsR2BEuAq0C The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy]'' 1991 Oxford University Press ISBN 0195066855
−
*[http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/index.htm The Melon Farmers (UK)]
+
* McDonald, Nicola. ''Medieval Obscenities,'' York Medieval Press (2006). ISBN 1903153182
 +
* O'Toole, L. (1998), Pornocopia: Porn, Sex, Technology and Desire, London, Serpent's Tail. ISBN 1-85242-395-1
 +
* Wheeler, Leigh Anne. ''Against Obscenity: Reform and the Politics of Womanhood in America, 1873—1935,'' Johns Hopkins University Press (2007). ISBN 0801886384
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 01:08, 21 August 2007


Obscenity is either the state of being lewd and indecent or something that is lewd or indecent. The definition of obscenity varies across cultures as do the laws regarding it. Because the concept of obscenity is often ill-defined, it can be used as a political tool to try to restrict freedom of expression. Thus, the definition of obscenity can be a civil liberties issue.

Definition

Obscenity (in Latin obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable," possibly derived from ob caenum, literally "from filth"). The term is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time.

Despite its long formal and informal use with a sexual connotation, the word still retains the meanings of "inspiring disgust" and even "inauspicious; ill-omened," as in such uses as "obscene profits," "the obscenity of war," and the like. It can simply be used to mean profanity, or it can mean anything that is taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting.

The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions, usually including, but not limited to pornographic material.

In Global Culture

Various countries have different standings on the types of materials that they as legal bodies permit their citizens to have access to and disseminate among their locale populations. The set of these countries permissable content vary widely accordingly with some having extreme punishment up to and including execution for members who violate their restrictions, as in the case of Iran where the current laws against pornography now include death sentences for those convicted of producing pornography.

In Global Law

Again, because social standards on obscenity vary across cultures, the treatment of obscenity before the law also varies.

United States

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 publically accessible, though has at times encompassed other subject matters such as spoken and written language that can be publically 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 penetation 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 anexplicit legal precedent (the "Miller test," below) which all but guarantees that something which 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]

Miller test

The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California[2]. It has three parts:

  • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
  • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in Mobile, Alabama, may differ from what offends the average person in New York City. The relevant community, however, is not defined. Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.

Some critics of obscenity law argue that the existence of Miller proves that federal obscenity laws are in fact not defined, and thus unenforceable and legally dubious. [3][4]

United Kingdom

The Obscene Publications Act basically determines the criteria for what material is allowed to be publically accessed and distributed within the member countries of the United Kingdom.

Canada

Section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of "obscenity." Officially termed as "Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals",[1] the Canadian prohibited class of articles which are to be legally included as "obscene things" is very broad, including text only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or "any other thing whatsoever" — that according to Section 163(8) — has "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence" is deemed to be "obscene" under the current law.

The current law states

163. (1) Every one commits an offense who

(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever; or
(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purposes of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

"Crime comics" are stated to be books that glorify criminal activities and have at least one depiction of such criminal actions of the book's text.

Asia

Norms of obscenity vary across Asia. Relatively liberal countries such as Japan have less stringent obscenity laws whereas such conservative countries as Pakistan have very strict definitions of what is socially acceptable.[5] In India, for example, some activists have taken to ransacking liquor stores deemed obscene.[6]

Africa

Laws can be similarly oppressive in Africa. Modern music has been condemned as obscene by traditionally minded Africans.[7] Conservatives have labeled homosexuality an obscenity and actively persecute it in Africa.[8]

Notes

  1. ↑ Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964).
  2. ↑ *Text of the decision and dissents, from findlaw.com. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  3. ↑ There is no Such Thing as Obscenity. The Ethical Spectacle (February 1996). Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  4. ↑ Huston, William A.. Under Color of Law: Obscenity vs. the First Amendment (PDF) pp. 75-82. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  5. ↑ Pakistani clerics threaten government with "obscenity" clampdown Monsters and Critics. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  6. ↑ Kashmir Women Fight 'Obscenity' BBC News. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  7. ↑ Do you enjoy modern music? BBC News. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  8. ↑ End Homophobia in Africa ILGA. Retrieved August 20, 2007.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Bahn, Paul. Ancient Obscenities: Or Things You Shouldn't Know About the History of Mankind!, Nonsuch Publishing (2007). ISBN 1845883500
  • Gurstein, Rochelle. The Repeal of Reticence: A History of America's Cultural and Legal Struggles over Free Speech, Obscenity, Sexual Liberation, and Modern Art, Hil & Wang Publishers (1998). ISBN 0809016125
  • Harrison, Maureen. Obscenity and Pornography Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Excellent (2000). ISBN 1880780232
  • Henderson, Jeffrey The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy 1991 Oxford University Press ISBN 0195066855
  • McDonald, Nicola. Medieval Obscenities, York Medieval Press (2006). ISBN 1903153182
  • O'Toole, L. (1998), Pornocopia: Porn, Sex, Technology and Desire, London, Serpent's Tail. ISBN 1-85242-395-1
  • Wheeler, Leigh Anne. Against Obscenity: Reform and the Politics of Womanhood in America, 1873—1935, Johns Hopkins University Press (2007). ISBN 0801886384

External links


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Obscenity&oldid=418986

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki