Home » Internet Pornography and Free Speech

WAYS TO HELP OUT

We are a 501c3 non profit organization designed to spread conservative values on campus. Your contributions are tax deductible. To donate by mail send contributions to Students For A Better Future.Com P.O. Box 436 Mount Tabor, NJ 07878-0436

Subscribe

Internet Pornography and Free Speech

JUST BECAUSE THE PORNOGRAPHY IS “FREE SPEECH”  ASK YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING? 

Is it Really Free Speech?

Would you really do it?   If the Supreme Court said it was legal to jump off the the GW Bridge would you do it?

Learn from speech advocate  if Pornography should be free speech.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? 

 

Pornography & obscenity
DAVID L. HUDSON JR.
FIRST AMENDMENT SCHOLAR
Friday, September 13, 2002
Pornography refers to material dealing with sex designed to arouse its readers or viewers. Webster’s Dictionary defines “pornography” as “writings, pictures, etc. intended primarily to arouse sexual desire.”
There are two types of pornography that receive no First Amendment protection — obscenity and child pornography. The First Amendment generally protects pornography that does not fall into one of these two categories — at least for adult viewers. Sometimes, material is classified as “harmful to minors” even though adults can have access to the same material.
Even a 1986 Attorney General Commission Report on Pornography said that “not all pornography is legally obscene.” The question becomes what types of pornography cross the line into the unprotected categories of obscenity and child pornography. Or to put it another way, courts often struggle with whether pornography is too “hard core.”
Obscenity
Obscenity remains one of the most controversial and confounding areas of First Amendment law. U.S. Supreme Court justices have struggled mightily through the years to define it. Justice Potter Stewart could provide no definition in Jacobellis v. Ohio other than exclaiming: “I know it when I see it.” In that 1964 decision, Stewart also said that the Court was “faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable.”




Justice Hugo Black expressed his frustration with determining whether certain pornography could be prohibited under the First Amendment when he wrote in Mishkin v. State of N.Y.: “I wish once more to express my objections to saddling this Court with the irksome and inevitably unpopular and unwholesome task of finally deciding by a case-by-case, sight-by-sight personal judgment of the members of this Court what pornography (whatever that means) is too hard core for people to see or read.”
After grappling with the obscenity problem in many cases during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Supreme Court laid out “basic guidelines” for jurors in obscenity cases in its 1973 decision Miller v. California. These include:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
The Court reasoned that individuals could not be convicted of obscenity charges unless the materials depict “patently offensive hard core sexual conduct.” This means that many materials dealing with sex, including pornographic magazines, books, and movies, simply do not qualify as legally obscene.
Even more fundamentally, nudity does not equal obscenity. The Supreme Court recognized this in Jenkins v. Georgia, when it ruled that the film “Carnal Knowledge” was not obscene. Justice William Rehnquist wrote in that 1974 case that “nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene under the Miller standards.”
A most troubling aspect of obscenity law concerns the application of community standards for defendants who ship materials of a sexual nature to different parts of the country. Should a defendant in California be subject to the mores of a more conservative locale?
The Court in Miller said that it was constitutional for different communities to articulate different community standards in obscenity cases. “To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national community standard would be an exercise in futility,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote.

“Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable ‘national standards’ when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter of fact,” Burger continued. “It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas or New York City.”



A pressing legal issue still to be resolved is whether federal law can apply local community standards to the global medium of the Internet. The Child Online Protection Act applies local community standards in determining whether material is harmful to minors. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in June 2000, writing that “Web publishers cannot restrict access to their site based on the geographic locale of the Internet user visiting their site.”
In May 2002, the Supreme Court vacated the 3rd Circuit’s ruling in Ashcroft v. ACLU, saying that the federal appeals court jumped the gun by invalidating the law based on the community-standards criterion at the early stages of litigation. However, several justices expressed uneasiness with applying local community standards to the Internet. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion that “to read the statute as adopting the community standards of every locality in the United States would provide the most puritan of communities with a heckler’s veto affecting the rest of the Nation.”
After the Supreme Court’s initial ruling, a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the law pending a full trial. The 3rd Circuit affirmed, as did the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU II, (2004).
“The Government has failed, at this point, to rebut the plaintiffs’ contention that there are plausible less restrictive alternatives to the statute,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court. “Substantial practical considerations, furthermore, argue in favor of upholding the injunction and allowing the case to proceed to trial.”
The case returned to district court for a full trial in fall 2006. In March 2007, the district judge released his opinion striking down COPA. “Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection,” wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. in ACLU v. Gonzalez.
In July 2008, a three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit invalidated COPA in ACLU v. Mukasey, finding that it did not pass strict scrutiny because filtering presented a less speech-restrictive alternative. The Supreme Court refused to review this decision in January 2009.
Child pornography
Another type of pornography that receives no First Amendment protection is child pornography. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. Ferber that states could prohibit child pornography even if somehow the material in question did not meet the Miller obscenity standard. The high court noted that a work taken as a whole could have serious artistic value but also “embody the hardest core of child pornography.”
The high court determined that the state had a compelling interest to prevent the sexual exploitation of minors in the making of child pornography. The Court called such an interest one of “surpassing importance.” The Court did recognize that child-pornography laws could be applied in a heavy-handed way: “Like obscenity statutes, laws directed at the dissemination of child pornography run the risk of suppressing protected expression by allowing the hand of the censor to become unduly heavy.”
In the 1990 case Osborne v. Ohio, the high court ruled that a state could punish even the private possession and viewing of child pornography. The defendant argued that the state was punishing a thought crime, but the majority of the Court disagreed. “Rather, Ohio has enacted … [the law] … in order to protect the victims of child pornography; it hopes to destroy a market for the exploitative use of children.”
Not all child pornography statutes are immune from First Amendment challenge. In April 2002, the Court struck down two provisions of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
CPPA expanded the definition of child pornography to include “any visual depiction” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The other challenged provision banned any sexually explicit material that is advertised or promoted in a way that “conveys the impression” that a minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
In other words, the “appears to be a minor” and “conveys the impression” clauses of the CPPA classified certain material as child pornography even though no actual minors were involved. The government asserted that it needed these provisions to target so-called “virtual child pornography.” The government argued the law was needed to keep pace with technology — that it was becoming harder to determine if certain images contained pictures of actual children.
However, the majority of the Court was bothered by the breadth of the language in CPPA. The justices noted that the law could theoretically be applied to certain Hollywood movies that use youthful adult actors in sexual scenes or even to Renaissance paintings. The Court noted that CPPA “proscribes a significant universe of speech that is neither obscene under Miller nor child pornography under Ferber.”
Congress responded to the Court’s decision in Free Speech Coalition by passing the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, better known as the PROTECT Act. The purpose of the law was to “restore the government’s ability to prosecute child pornography offenses successfully.” Prosecutors and legislators warned about the ability of defendants in child-porn cases to raise the “virtual child porn defense,” arguing that the images in question did not contain pictures of actual minors.
A February 2003 Senate report on the PROTECT Act said prosecution of child pornography became more difficult for prosecutors because of the Free Speech Coalition ruling. “Many prosecutions, in fact, were dismissed,” the report stated. “And even the prosecutions that remain have been significantly and adversely affected by the decision because prosecutors need to devote significantly more resources to each child pornography case than ever before.”
The PROTECT Act, which was signed into law in April 2003, amended child- pornography laws in several ways. First, it created a new definition of child pornography to include pornographic pictures of children that are “virtually indistinguishable” from actual children. It also requires defendants to prove that the images they possess or distribute were not made with and do not depict actual children.
The PROTECT Act also created a new pandering offense by prohibiting offers to sell, trade or buy material purported to depict actual or obscene child pornography. The Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to this pandering provision from constitutional challenge in U.S. v. Williams (2008).
“Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection,” the Court wrote. “Offers to deal in illegal products or otherwise engage in illegal activity do not acquire First Amendment protection when the offeror is mistaken about the factual predicate of his offer.” (See also “Virtual child pornography.”)
Indecent speech
Much sexual expression does not meet the legal definition of obscenity or child pornography. But society simply doesn’t want this material to fall into the hands of minors. Thus many states have regulated other forms of sexual speech that are “indecent” but not obscene.
The Supreme Court, for instance, ruled in 1978 that the Federal Communications Commission could limit the transmission of indecent speech on the radio during hours when children are likely to be listening. That case dealt with a fine imposed on a radio station that played George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue during daytime hours. The Court’s ruling in FCC v. Pacifica has been largely confined to the broadcast medium.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pacifica has been criticized. Recent broadcast indecency cases involving the brief display of Janet Jackson’s breast at the Super Bowl and the use of the F-word by Sonny Bono and Nicole Richie at the Billboard Music awards have led to constitutional challenges, including arguments that FCC v. Pacifica should be overturned. However, in Fox Television v. FCC (2009), the Supreme Court declined to address the underlying First Amendment arguments and instead decided that the FCC did not act arbitrarily under the Administrative Procedure Act when it tightened its policy on indecency enforcement for the use of fleeting expletives.
Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in the Fox case criticized the Court’s differential treatment of different media in First Amendment cases. He concluded that he was “open to reconsideration” of Pacifica.
As for other media, the Court has ruled that the government cannot use the protection-of-minors rationale to shield adults from viewing indecent material. In the 1989 dial-a-porn case, Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, the Supreme Court bluntly stated that “sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” The Court also has struck down prohibitions on indecent speech on the Internet and cable television. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pornography-obscenity)

Weekly Podcasts

Channel 21 LANTV New Jersey Current Programming


Upcoming Podcast

  • Totalitarian Thought
    Totalitarian Thought
    Totalitarianism is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. Read More Here:   
  • Immigration reform
    Immigration reform
    Under a Trump Presidency, how will our Immigration System be revamped. Learn More:
  • What's Life Like Under A Trump Presidency?
    What's Life Like Under A Trump Presidency?
    Will you have a job? Will Obamacare be repealed? Learn more:

RSS Seton Hall Sports

  • Seton Hall's Angel Delgado returning for senior season: What it means
    One of the best big men in the country is coming back to South Orange. The biggest piece of Seton Hall's plan to contend in the Big East next season is back in the fold. Angel Delgado, the Pirates' 6-foot-10 center, announced on Monday that he would return to South Orange for his senior season. […]
  • Seton Hall's Angel Delgado going pro? Looks like that, 'but it's not certain'
    Seton Hall big man Angel Delgado could be going pro, with reports that the First Team All-Big East center is headed to the NBA Draft surfacing on Wednesday. Watch video Seton Hall big man Angel Delgado might not just be testing the draft waters. Multiple reports on Wednesday said the double-double machine is diving into the the […]
  • Rutgers sets record with 8 top APR teams, Seton Hall men's basketball lauded again
    Which teams at Rutgers, Seton Hall, Princeton, Monmouth, Rider, Saint Peter's rank among top percent nationally in academics? Academic achievement within Rutgers athletics reached a new high. A school-record eight Rutgers teams were cited Wednesday by the NCAA for being among the top 10 percent nationally in multi-year Academic Progress Rate (APR). Basketball, tennis, gymnastics, lacrosse, volleyball […]
  • Patrick School point guard Jordan Walker commits to Seton Hall
    The star guard has made his decision. Jordan Walker's next basketball step could have taken him all over the country. He could have opted for a post-grad year at Montverde Academy in Florida. Staying in the class of 2017 was an option as well, with offers from schools ranging from New Jersey to California. But […]
  • Seton Hall center Angel Delgado wins Haggerty Award
    The rebounding machine grabbed another award on Wednesday. Angel Delgado's list of awards just got a little bit longer. Seton Hall's 6-foot-10 junior center was announced as the winner of the Haggerty Award on Wednesday morning, an honor given to the top player in the Metro New York area by the Metropolitan Basketball Writers Association every […]
  • Seton Hall gets commitment from 2017 forward Sandro Mamukelashvili
    The Pirates may have the forward of the future. While it's still in question if Angel Delgado will return to Seton Hall next season, the Pirates got a commitment from a different frontcourt player on Thursday. Sandro Mamukelashvili, a 6-foot-10 forward from Montverde Academy in Florida, committed to Seton Hall on Thursday, according to several reports. […]
  • Why did NCAA snub N.J. with no March Madness games until at least 2023?
    The Garden State won't be hosting March Madness for at least another five years. New Jersey has hosted NCAA Tournament games successfully in the past, and the Garden State is loaded with passionate hoops fans. But if you're looking to attend March Madness in New Jersey, you'll have to wait until 2023 at the earliest. […]
  • Sources: Seton Hall AD Pat Lyons out of search at Boston College
    Boston College is searching for a new AD, but it won't be Seton Hall's Pat Lyons after he interviewed last week but is out of consideration Seton Hall athletics director Pat Lyons is staying put. Lyons is no longer a candidate to fill the athletics director vacancy at Boston College, sources told NJ Advance Media. […]
Skip to toolbar