Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Obscenity is not encompassed within the phrases "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press." There is no constitutional protection for obscenity, federal or state. Since this is so, Congress and the state legislative bodies may adopt laws to proscribe and punish those who manufacture, distribute, exhibit, or advertise obscene materials. Since no inroads are made by such legislation on protected speech, it is not necessary to look for a "clear and present danger"; nor even is it required to find a "compelling" or "substantial" federal or state interest to justify such laws. Unless the one challenging such laws can show that they are "irrational" under the due process clauses of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, they will be upheld. Of course, passage of such laws is an exercise in police power, and under our concept of "ordered liberty," laws find their philosophical underpinnings in the protection of the health, safety, welfare or morals of the people. Under the principle of majority rule, therefore, laws with such underpinnings, those which are not irrational, may be passed by a simple majority of the legislature. To those who say "I don't like such laws" or "You are forcing me to comply with moral standards other than my own," we say, "You are living in a democratic republic where majority rule is the law. If you don't like it, short of revolution, your democratic response is to either change the Constitution or prevail upon the legislatures to repeal the obscenity laws -- but don't try to obsfucate the law by making false claims that such regulation is unconstitutional."
The inherent danger to "public morality" (or "collective morality" -- a term used by Dallin H. Oaks, President of Brigham Young University) of obscene publications and the necessity to proscribe the same by legislation has been recognized from the time of Aristotle who said:
"The legislator ought to banish from the state, as he would any other evil, all unseemly talk. The indecent remark, lightly dropped, results in conduct of like kind. Especially, therefore, it must also forbid pictures or literature of the same kind."
Our common law tradition from England always considered obscenity a proscribable utterance. Sir William Blackstone, the compiler of that tradition, said:
"Every free man has an undoubted right to lay whatever sentiments he pleases before the public . . . but if he publishes what is illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity . . . [It is necessary] to punish . . . offensive writings . . . for the preservation of peace and good order."
Obscenity has always similarly been considered proscribable in the United States. Following Blackstone and the English common law, we have applied the punishment after the fact on the purveyor of obscenity.
In 1682 a bill was introduced and enacted as a General Law of the province of East New Jersey providing punishment for those who uttered "obscene words." This was followed by a similar law in West New Jersey in 1683. As early as 1712 the province of Massachusetts adopted a law against publishing "filthy or obscene" pamphlets.
In other states, in our early history, obscenity was looked upon as a common law crime. In 1808, Connecticut indicted an individual for the display of "an indecent picture or sign." In 1815 Pennsylvania courts upheld an indictment for exhibiting an obscene picture for money as a common law offense, the court stating that "neither is there any doubt that the publication of an obscene book is indictable." The presiding Judge Yeates noted:
"Where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general . . . it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid, for government is no more than public order. It weakens the bands by which society is kept together. The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures . . . must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences. We find that in 1770 in the case of King v. Wilkes, that the defendant was convicted for an obscene "Essay on Women."
In 1821, Massachusetts courts convicted one Holmes of the misdemeanor of publishing an obscene book. In 1824, Vermont passed an obscenity statute. In 1842, the Congress of the United States prohibited the importation of obscene materials. In 1865, the predecessor of the present federal mail statute was passed. In 1897, Congress adopted a criminal statute against interstate transportation of obscenity and in 1929 prohibited the broadcasting of obscenity.
Since no one seriously thought that the First Amendment protected objectionable material of this sort, there were no direct First Amendment challeges. It was not until 1957 that the issue was seriously presented to the United States Supreme Court in the Roth-Alberts case. In Roth, Justice Brennan speaking for the majority of the Court said:
"It is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. . . . At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment . . . obscenity . . . was outside the protection intended for speech and press. The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. Implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. This rejection . . . is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations, in the obscenity laws of all forty-eight states and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene. We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."
The question of whether it is necessary to show that obscene materials induce criminal acts arises because of the legal theory produced in Schneck v. United States in which Mr. Justice Holmes stated:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater causing a panic . . . The question . . . is whether . . . the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Holmes indicates thatt you cannot constitutionally inhibit "free speech" unless failure to do so is likely to create a clear and present danger of substantive evil. There are people who argue that you can't prove that obscenity produces such an evil; hence, you ought not to legislate against it. The complete answer to such an argument is that obscenity has been determined on many occasions not to be "free speech" (even though it is an utterance) and therefore there is no necessity to prove that antisocial effects will eminate from it.
Notes Justice Brennan in Roth-Alberts at 354 US 486:
"It is insisted that the Constitutional guarantees are violated because convictions may be had without proof either that obscene material will perceptibly create a clear and present danger of anti-social conduct or will probably induce its recipients to such conduct. But in the light of our holding that obscenity is not free speech . . . it is unnecessary for us or the state court to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger'. . . "
Added Justice Harlan in a concurrance at 354 US 501:
"It seems to me clear that it is not irrational in our present state of knowledge, to consider that pornography can induce a type of sexual conduct which a state may deem obnoxious to the moral fabric of society. Even assuming that pornography cannot be deemed to cause, in an immediate sense, criminal sexual conduct, other interests within the proper cognizance of the States may be protected by the prohibition placed on such materials. The state can reasonably draw the inference that over a long period of time the indiscriminate dissemination of materials, the essential character of which is to degrade sex, will have an eroding effect on moral standards."
In the 1973 Paris Adult Theater decision, the Supreme Court again gives us an additional constitutional-philosophical rationale for the existence of obscenity law when at 413 US 59 the Court states:
"We hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity . . . These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers and possibly the public safety itself. The Hill-Link Minority Report of the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography indicates that there is at least an arguable connection between obscene material and crime. . . . Quite apart from sex crimes there remains one problem of large proportions aptly described by Professor Bickel:
'It concerns the tone of society . . . the style and quality of life, now and in the future. A man may be entitled to read an obscene book in his room, or expose himself indecently. There we should protect his privacy, but if he demands a right to obtain the books and pictures he wants in the market, and to foregather in public places -- discreet, if you will, but accessible to all -- with others who share his tastes, then to grant him his right is to affect the world about the rest of us and to impinge on other privacies. Even supposing that each of us can, if he wishes effectively to avert the eye and stop the ear (which in truth he cannot) what is commonly read and heard and seen and done intrudes on us all, want it or not.' "
In Paris Adult Theatre, Chief Justice Burger summed it all up when he said, "There is a right of the nation and of the states to maintain a decent society."
On the same day that Paris Adult Theatre was decided the Supreme Court also decided Kaplan v. California in which it stated:
"States need not wait until behavioral experts or educators can provide empirical data before enacting controls on obscene matter not protected by the Constitution."
Mr. Dallin H. Oaks, the author of a monograph entitled "The Popular Myth of Victimless Crime," took office as President of Brigham Young University in 1971. He had served as Law Clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren, as a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, and Executive Director of the American Bar Foundation, and as Assistant State's Attorney in Cook County, Illinois. In that monograph, Mr. Oaks made the following remarks regarding the positive impact of legislating to improve societal civility:
1. "The criminal law also exists for the protection of society at large. The 'standard-setting' function of law can also be overlooked by those who are occupied with whether a particular law can be effectively enforced. Enforcement is an important consideration, but not a dispositive one. Because of its 'teaching' and 'standards setting' role, the law may serve society's interest by authoritatively condemning what it cannot begin to control directly by criminal penalties. This standard-setting function of law is of ever-increasing importance to society in a time when the moral teachings and social controls of our nation's families, schools and churches seem to be progressively less effective.
2. "The repeal of laws also can have an educative effect. If certain activities are classified as crimes, this is understood that the conduct is immoral, bad, unwise, and unacceptable for society and the individual. Consequently, if an elective legislative body removes criminal penalties, many citizens will understand this repeal as an official judgment that the decriminalized behavior is not harmful the individual or to society. Indeed, some may even understand decriminalization as a mark of public approval of the conduct in question. . . . The law is an effective teacher for good or evil.
3. "It is inevitable that the law will codify and teach moral values not shared by some portion of the society -- usually a minority.
4. "Preservation of the public health, safety and morals is a traditional concern of legislation. This does not justify laws in furtherance of the special morality of a particular group, but it does justify legislation in support of standards of right and wrong of such sufficient general acceptance that they can qualify as 'Collective Morality.' "
<![if !supportEmptyParas]>The obscenity laws are here to stay no matter how much the ACLU rails against them or tries to force upon us their version of the Constitution. Laws that protect societal decency are being enforced with greater frequency although progress is not always visible. These laws are here because a consensus of the American people want them. This is reflected in all of the polls taken by Messrs. Gallup and Roper and the laws of all the states. The 1970 Report of the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography -- advocating the abolition of obscenity laws -- came from a stacked commission (the hand-picked Chairman and General Counsel were both active members of the ACLU) whose preconceived conclusions were vigorously rejected by the President and by the Senate via a vote of 60 to 5 (and rejected by the Supreme Court in Miller (1973) and its progeny). The Supreme Court in those decisions quoted wiht approval the Hill-Link Minority Report of that Presidential Commission. The Hill-Link Report condemned the majority report as biased, seriously flawed and lacking in credibility.
There is a right to maintain a decent society. The word "decent" is by nature a moral criterion and those who don't like morality as a justification for governmental action will have to accept the constitutional police power principle that "Consensus Morality" is now, ever was, and always will be a solid legal basis for obscenity legislation.
"It is for Congress to supply the needed correction where the relation between intrastate and interstate rates presents the evil to be corrected, and this it may do completely, by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce."
BS. Nowhere in this decision is there any reference to Congresses authority in such matters beyond the regulation of common carriers as "instruments of interstate commerce". You selected quote says as much:
by reason of its control over the interstate carrier
Nice try, though.
You've been talking to one.
There is a balance between the rights of the individual and their responsibility to society. Where is the line? I wish it was so clear. It is negotiable. Society and the individual have to decide it.
Why can society and the individual decide that smoking weed is a crime, but at the same time blasphemy is a protected right?
According to Family News In Focus, a search of [Gary] Ridgway's home uncovered pornographic magazines, something frequently linked to sex-crimes. The article further stated that, according to the FBI, 81% of sexually-oriented murderers and serial killers listed pornography as their primary sexual interest.Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson interviewed serial killer Ted Bundy before his execution in 1989. Bundy told Dobson that porn helped fuel his own murder spree. "I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence, just like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography, without question," he told Dobson.
...not to mention, Gary Bishop and the homosexual killers of Jeffrey Curley and a bunch of other desensitized sex addicts who may or may not commit a sex crime.
Of course, every porn enthusiast thinks he is immune to all detrimental effects.
How is your examination of the means by which they propose to remedy the situation coming?
"Similarly, the community government has the right to uphold the moral standard it desires."
Our government has no rights, only constitutionally mandated powers. Please, if you can, show me the specific federal or state constitutional power that allows the government to uphold "moral standards" concerning obscene material. (other then Montana as they actually do have constitutional article allowing them to do this)
"Ooh. Is that a threat? And if I were to press criminal charges against you for that threat?"
Ohh, Bobby, Bobby. What an argument. At least we know you're not allergic to straw, man.
Only an imbecile like you can twist my words around into some type of threat. I believe I said "You want to change that? Prepare to meet my "2nd Amendment". The prior sentence provides context (sound it out if you are having trouble understanding it), which you disregarded in your last post.
Maybe I should rephrase that. What I mean to say is that I have a Constitutional right to absolute ownership of my private property (which includes porn or any number of things you may dislike). I am therefore free from your intrusions, and free from that of the governments, on this matter. If you and the "Holy Roller" Brigade want to press the matter to the point where you would invade MY personal property, MY home, to confiscate my belongings, *THEN* I would have the right to blow your f***ing head off.
Are we clear?
"Did you know that drug addicts are not allowed to possess handguns in Alabama?"
I know of it, and I adamantly oppose it as a discriminatory and BLATANTLY unconstitutional restriction on the freedoms of a certain group of American citizens. I cannot control the scribblings of reactionary thugs from the State bench any more than I can control the ruling of the Marxists on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
States do? All states? Don't you want to check the idividual constitutions of the states before claiming they have those powers?
Are you sure about that?
Yes they do. Of course wheather that covers banning pornography may be somewhat dependent on who's definition of "regulate interstate commerce" you choose to employ.
Well, the means of remedying the situation is awfully complicated! I've done a lot of reading via the www in the last few days. The most important thing I've discovered is that laws exist which prohibit certain kinds of pornography, but they are not always enforced... which I don't understand at all. I mean, why go to the trouble of writing laws if they aren't going to be enforced? http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?obscenityEnforcement.htm and http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/pornography/caape/ (General citizen action and anti-porn efforts.
Also, http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?stopSpam.htm (in particular, "porn spam")
When are you going to give your views on the matter? (If you already have and I missed them, sorry. This has gotten to be a long thread...)
Today I noticed two "Adult Video" shacks on the interstate hwy that have closed down recently. One had cars in the parking lot just last week, but now it's vacant and there is graffiti on the side. Obviously, this made my day. : ) Does anyone here know what the easiest way would be for me to find out what they did that got them closed down?
I think sometimes laws are written to be enforced against a particular individual or situation that has become a personal issue with someone with enough influence in the legislature to get them passed. Once that particular situation is remedied, they move on to other issues. In Missouri, it is illegal to rollerskate in a saloon. Why did they do that?
My take on it is that if you're more afraid of something, be it drugs, pornography, terrorism, guns, or anything else, than you are of losing your freedom people who think you have too much freedom will play on that fear and try to use it to trick you into giving up your freedom willingly. In order to do what is appropriate and proper we must examine their arguments and proposed means carefully and not get caught up in a lot of emotional hype or we will not be able to maintain the Republic that has been left in our trust.
So in your opinion States have powers not delegated to them via their constitutions. It's a strange strange world in which we live.
States have unlimited powers now...who knew we lived in a tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.