Some law review material criticizing and calling for the abolition of the obscenity doctrine.
It needs to go.
Pornography can already be restricted based on time and place to keep it out of view from nonconsenting adults and minors.
We already have the “harmful to minors” doctrine to deal with the unlawful dissemination of pornography to minors. We have the child pornography exception to deal with pornography which exploits minors.
The idea that “obscene” speech could even exist in an American legal sense is confounding. Rights come before feelings, and it’s quite clear that the obscenity doctrine is wholly overboard, vague, and unjustified. Any reasonable jurist could see this as so.
The obscenity doctrine is an overbroad, vague, civil rights injustice. It is no different than the doctrine of “separate but equal”. It exists only to cause harm to sexual and social minorities, and those with unpopular tastes. It is, quite literally, a form of thought crime. You can’t get any worse than that.
The idea that morals need to be defended by being imposed upon the populace in this manner is in direct contravention of the First, Fourth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It is fundamentally and functionally incompatible with the Free Speech, Prior Restraint, Overbroadeth, Vagueness, and Right to Privacy doctrines.
Just don’t be black and sit at the front of the bus. Just don’t be black and marry a white woman.
Just don’t burn the US flag.
Just don’t use profanity.
Just don’t say “FUCK THE DRAFT!”.
Just don’t say the lord’s name in vein.
Better yet, just don’t look at things which offend your sensibilities, or grow a spine and deal with the fact that other opinions, tastes and viewpoints exist that either contravene, or simply do not conform to your own. That’s the entire point of free speech.
Your refusal to positively appreciate or entertain the value of something isn’t a valid reason to suppress or censor it. Arbitrary content-based double standards like the one you’re arguing in favor of undermine and trivialize the grand and robust concept of free speech and expression.
The freedom of speech does not tolerate such arbitrary content-based discrimination. Either it’s all okay, or none of it’s okay (within reason).
Also, the double-standard for sex is still not justified, as the demand for videos depicting torture of any kind will still be there whether or not sex is depicted.
See above. The good image of women and children is not threatened by the allowance of speech that is immodest, indecent, or otherwise “obscene” towards women and children as mere concepts.
We already prohibit pornography made with actual children. We don’t need anything more.