And I think when we're using the words in that way, it's got a similar quality to when we talk about things like beauty or obscenity . If we say intelligence is a sort of shared human concept-- it's not defined from first principles.
Therefore, the government said since Clinton Fein wasn't in the business of putting obscene material online, the law didn't apply to him and his case should be dismissed. Lemme remind you what obscenity is. Something is obscene if it falls within the three-part definition of obscenity established by the Supreme Court in a case called Miller v. California, 1973. In order to be obscene,
And then Radclyffe Hall came along in like 1929, and she wrote a book called "The Well of Loneliness." It was in the court system in the UK for a long time for obscenity . And it finally made it to the US.
It doesn't make any sense. Anyway, that's what obscenity is. The government hardly prosecutes any obscenity cases anymore. They're hard core, bestiality rape scenes and violent videos and stuff. They rarely trouble with obscene cases. And Clinton Fein clearly wasn't putting anything obscene online. Well, the government's new definition of the annoy law was ridiculous. Obscenity already was prohibited in any medium
But then there's specifics. So John McWhorter has a wonderful book about obscenity , and he gives the example that words like "damn" or "god" or "Christ" used to be the worst parts of the worst of obscenities.
Alas, two of the three district judges on the court agreed with the government using Reno's interpretation as a convenient way to avoid declaring the whole law unconstitutional. Since Fein didn't challenge the prohibition of obscenity the judges dismissed his case. But since the district court decision applied only here in Northern California, and Fein's
First Amendment decision ever, quote "The judgment is affirmed." No explanation. It was a terribly disappointing outcome and waste of several years of litigation during which the government never suggested limiting the law to obscenity . There was a sliver of a silver lining. The Supreme Court's action had the effect of making the district court interpretation binding nationally.
you what obscenity is. Something is obscene if it falls within the three-part definition of obscenity established by the Supreme Court in a case called Miller v. California, 1973. In order to be obscene, that's a category of speech that has no First Amendment protection at all. In order to be obscene, it has to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest-- the interest in sexual
Women's barracks actually was about a real couple with a real relationship a little bit. And so it came under the scrutiny of the house un-American Activities Committee, where they had it up for obscenity , and they said, "Lesbianism was a sociological disease and a cause for grave national concern.
says it has to gross you out. It has to be patently offensive. It has to do both. It has to both turn you on and gross you out. It doesn't make any sense. Anyway, that's what obscenity is. The government hardly prosecutes any obscenity cases anymore. They're hard core, bestiality rape scenes and violent videos and stuff. They rarely trouble with obscene cases.
The government hardly prosecutes any obscenity cases anymore. They're hard core, bestiality rape scenes and violent videos and stuff. They rarely trouble with obscene cases. And Clinton Fein clearly wasn't putting anything obscene online. Well, the government's new definition of the annoy law was ridiculous. Obscenity already was prohibited in any medium of communication, so the government's interpretation would render the law meaningless.
So John McWhorter has a wonderful book about obscenity , and he gives the example that words like "damn" or "god" or "Christ" used to be the worst parts of the worst of obscenities. So, in fact, they got transformed into phrases like gee willikers and gosh darn to soften them.