Saturday, July 19, 2014

Obscenity on Trial Part VI

This is Part VI in a series on One, Inc. v. Olesen, which dealt with obscenity laws.

Click here for Part IPart IIPart IIIPart IV, Part V

In this part I will be focusing on the modern jurisprudence in relation to obscenity. In the United States, court turn to the Miller Test to define whether or not a work is to be considered obscene. 

Prior to the Miller Test, the definition of obscenity more or less was non-existent as there were over 30 obscenity trials between 1966-1972, all with different standards. As previously discussed, the Roth Test had the most weight to it; however it was a deeply flawed test due to its incompleteness.

The effect of the Miller Test are that it clarified obscenity, liberalized obscenity laws, and reduced the number of obscenity cases.

To understand the effects of the Miller Test, it's necessary to under what it is.The Miller Test on obscenity can be found in the holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):

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. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.

For a material to be obscene it must fail all of the three prongs of the test.

The first prong of the Miller Test is the Roth Test verbatim. It establishes who determines obscenity (average person), which standards (contemporary community), what material (ones with the purpose of giving a man a stiffy.)  My Black's Law Dictionary  is away from me at the moment, but a common definition of prurient is "that which incites lasciviousness or lust."

The second prong of the Test establishes that the obscene material must depict or describe sexual content as defined by the appropriate state law.

And thirdly it establishes that the material must be taken as a whole, and whether the material has relevant redeeming factor such as artistic, political or scientific value. The third prong is interesting as it is a check on the second prong, as it  makes sure that the state law isn't overly stringent.

Prong three is where the test becomes revolutionary.

The Miller Test, as it is stated, makes it easy enough for the adult film industry to tailor their material to fit the test. Films and naughty magazines simply need to mascaraed as art. I think the pizza delivery man's penis was a metaphor for the internal conflict of modern social conditions and  between the internal, animalistic drives of a rugged individualist with lube.

I posted the following video to YouTube which goes further into the circumstances of Miller v. California. It's perhaps a bit cheeky and the production quality isn't the greatest, but I recommend watching it if you are still interested in the matter.


I want to reemphasize that I am not a apologist for the Miller Court. I think obscenity generally is an unwarranted burden on free speech. What I respect about the Miller Test is that it improved the situation, and hopefully our legal structure will continue to protect artist from obscenity charges. But every once in a while a trigger-happy prosecutor will still unjustly target a pornographer on obscenity charges in a wave of conservative fervor.


Liam '14

Click here for Part IPart IIPart IIIPart IVPart V

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Sunday Morning Slander

This week was short and I haven't noticed much in the way of news. So I punching down, so to speak, by focusing on this story that appeared on Rawstory.com written by Eric W. Dolan:

Students in a freshman biology class in Atlanta’s Grady High School were shown a PowerPoint presentation that linked evolution to Satan, abortion, divorce, racism, and homosexuality.

The Grady High student newspaper, the Southerner, reported that Anquinette Jones used the PowerPoint presentation to teach the theory of evolution to her students during a freshman biology class last spring.

One slide in the 52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by creationism and Christianity.


My bullshit detector is wobbling a bit right now. I don't think anyone could be this fucking dumb and the primary source is a high school newspaper... so yeah... not to denigrate high school students...

Ok, I found another source, which actually shows and links to the primary sources. Uggh.. The article written by the high school students is actually well written and appears to be factual... uggh.. my faith in humanity is both downgraded by the stupidity of a biology teacher and yet bolstered by great journalism that gives me hope for the future.

So let's march on.

One slide in the 52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by creationism and Christianity.

So... uggh deep breath... find my happy place... slide... Ok, you are trying to get people to accept creationism in the middle of showing why and how evolution works. And to a bunch of 15 year old boys, you say pornography drives evolution. You don't understand 15 year old boys, do you? 15 year old boys are porn-freaks.

In fact in the middle of your presentation one of the students was either watching a porno on their iPhone or drawing naked ladies in their notebook.

But after looking through the slideshow it appears the rest of the material was fairly solid. So unless the teacher undercuts the rest of the slideshow with a stupid verbal rant everything's fine:

Jones told the Southerner that the PowerPoint presentation originated with the Atlanta Public Schools system. But students told the paper that Jones had brought up creationism and criticized evolution in her biology class before.

“She always had random comments about [creationism],” student {Name Redacted} told the Southerner. “If someone would ask if we were going to learn evolution, she was like, ‘No, I don’t teach that.’”

“[I] have gay parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” another student, {Name Redacted}, said.

Happy place... happy place... happy place... Ok think of the positives on the story. Students are demanding accountability from educators.

Students are taking the initiative and become active and engaged in democracy and their future. 

And it seems that the students understand why this circumstance is wrong, or at least some of the students seem to understand why this is wrong.  


Liam '14

Saturday, July 5, 2014

A Gay Reading of... Miller v. California

I finally found sometime to do something on Miller v. California.



I will be publishing a write up in a little while to cap off the Obscenity on Trial Series.

Enjoy if you can.


Liam '14

Friday, July 4, 2014

Happy No Taxation Without Representation Day

Happy Freedom Day, Decleration of Independence Day, or 4th of July, which ever one floats your metaphorical boat.

I'm coming up on a busy stretch right now, so I will make no promises to myself or anyone else about what I will be posting.  However, I do want to post something about the Miller Test soon-ish. So yay to that.

Have fun and keep all of your digits safe when playing with explosives.


Liam '14

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Let's Welcome Kentucky to the 21st Century

Today the Courts ruled in favor of in-state marriages. Yay!

So let's update the mother fuckin' map.

gay marriage map july 2014


Boom!

Stay issued of course, but onward we march.

Liam '14

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Sunday Morning Slander

Warning the following is so stupid you may void your bowels: Enjoy.

This weekend was Twin Cities Pride. Of course since it's pride weekend that means the stupid is out in full force. And this is really fucking stupid.

Thanks to the intrepid reporting of Andy Birkey (who was a part of the Rachel Maddow lawsuit that I analyzed forever ago) at the Twin Cities Daily Planet, we are granted insight into the inter machinations of a local evangelical organization called Trinity Works:

The group says it has about 300 outreach workers scheduled for Pride, and those workers will be based at First Baptist Church on Hennepin Avenue along the Pride parade route.

Its leader Steven Uggen told a group gathered in April at The Well, A Living Church in Robbinsdale, that people will be cured of “HIV or AIDS” at the Pride festivities. Uggen says that by healing those with HIV, it will prove to the LGBT community that they should find Jesus and leave “the lifestyle.”



How to go about this:

A.)     There are reportedly 300 people not only dumb enough to buy this Aids-Denialist bullshit, but they are also willing to participate.

B.)     There are reportedly 300 people who think they can channel God to heal people.

C.)     This organization thinks that the Gayz haz the Aidz.  HIV is a virus you fucking dumb pieces of shit. What the fuck is wrong with you. Do you think that MILLIONS of South Africans chose a sinful life style. You fucking fucks.

D.)     If anyone stops taking their antiretroviral cocktail due to these bottom feeders... ughh so fucking pissed. Mother.. son of... 


There is a phase, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," but these assholes are really pushing it.


Liam '14

Hat Tip to Joe.My.God 

Saturday, June 28, 2014

A Gay Reading of Lawrence v. Texas




Hey Look what I found on YouTube.

Some dickhead stole my voice, my image, and my childlike sense of humour. Oh, wait no, I was drunk again and decided it would be fun to post a video.

So go check it out if you fucking hate reading.

I'm planning on reading some of my favorite cases and doing my thing with them. So keep a look out for more.



Liam '14