obscenity and child porno

obscenity and child porno - Obscenity and Child Pornography...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Obscenity and Child Pornography Introduction Obscenity online can be many different things. Legalzoom.com defines obscenity as words, images, or actions that offend the sexual morality of its viewers. This could be anything from simple profanity to pictures or videos. Child pornography, which is the exploitation of minors through words, pictures, or video, is also in this category. Even though there are many rules and laws regulating what can be put on the Internet, it is still a major issue thanks to our constitutional right of freedom of speech. To determine if what is on the Internet is considered obscene, the United States Supreme Court use something called the Miller Test. Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment in the Constitution and it can be prohibited. This law was developed due to the case Miller vs California in 1973. It is considered the most important case on freedom of expression. The case involved a man named Marvin Miller, who sold illustrated books of sexual activity. The law that came to be after this case is a “three pronged test” in which three conditions must be met; 1.) Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, 2.) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. 3.) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks seriously literarily, artistic, political, or scientific value. If such material is deemed obscene, even if it considered art, it can be banned by the state in a court of law. Discussion:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
In Pittsburg, there is currently a case going on that involves a woman who posted graphic stories about adults having sex with children online. The fictitious stories included the kidnapping, raping, torture, and sometimes murder of children under the age of ten. Karen Fletcher faces six charges of transporting obscene material over the Internet. Her lawyer unsuccessfully lobbied the judge to dismiss her case, saying that words alone cannot be considered obscene. But looking back to the definition of obscenity, it is stated right there that obscenity is words, images, or video that is offensive. The judge disagreed with the lawyer, saying that there is enough information to keep the trial going. The judge also said that most of the issue was the fact that she charged people to read these stories. Fletcher’s lawyer says that her site was based on freedom of thought, which she should have the right to possess and share, but US Attorney Steven Kauffman said that the government isn’t trying to censor Fletcher’s thoughts but that the case is rather about the sale of those thoughts. To convict Fletcher, prosecutors will have to persuade a jury that her writings are legally obscene
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

obscenity and child porno - Obscenity and Child Pornography...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online