The U.S. Supreme Court defined “obscenity” in 1973 in a decision called Miller v. California by
saying that
A publication must, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest, must contain
patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the
whole have no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This obscenity, the Court has said, is not protected by the First Amendment, as that was not the
intention of the Founding Fathers.
What will be an ideal response?
1. Some have said that it is difficult to define obscenity, but they would know it when they
see it. Carefully consider the above definition of obscenity. Do you find this an adequate
definition? How would you modify or expand that definition? Does it accurately define
those things you consider obscenity, nothing more and nothing less?
2. J.S. Mill has said that he believes obscenity should be protected free speech. Using the
definition above, do you agree or disagree? Develop ethical arguments to support your
position.
3. Legal philosopher Catherine MacKinnon has urged that pornography should be
censored, as it encourages violence against women and thus causes real harm to
women. She was instrumental in encouraging the city of Indianapolis to pass an
ordinance banning all pornography with this rationale. The definition of "pornography" in
that ordinance started with "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women,
whether in pictures or in words," followed by a list of six things, at least one of which
must be included to count as pornography. The list included, e.g., "Women are
presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation." How does this definition of
pornography (which is protected free speech) differ from obscenity (which is not)? A
federal appeals court struck down the ordinance as a violation of the First Amendment
protection of free speech. Is this conclusion justifiable on ethical free speech grounds?
The degrading treatment of women can be considered a form of hate speech. Should
that override the free speech rights of pornographers?
You might also like to view...
A criticism of the First Cause argument given in your text is
a. it is possible the uncaused cause is matter itself. b. there could be many uncaused causes. c. it does not demonstrate that the First Cause is benevolent. d. all of the above
Huemer discusses which of the following arguments for the legalization of drugs
a. Drugs should be outlawed because they cause harm to users. b. Drugs should be outlawed because they harm people other than the user. c. Drugs should be legalized because drug prohibition violates rights. d. All of the above
Rauch maintains that attempts to eliminate bias and not allow its expression
a. can never fully succeed, but are still worth trying. b. can work effectively within communities or even nations, but not universally. c. have never really been tried, and thus we don't know what would happen. d. wind up stifling dissent and persecuting dissenters. e. are a good idea within colleges and universities, but not on a larger scale.
Discuss the three areas of due-care responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer
Please provide the best answer for the statement.