|
|||||
Heresy/Blasphemy
A. Overview of Issues Related to Heresy/Blasphemy-- see chart in text p. 120 – Types of Heresy
1.
False doctrine
2.
Irreverence
3.
Profane and
disgusting
4.
Sensual and
erotic
5.
Opinions and
facts of science
6.
Dissenting views
on private morality
B.
Blasphemy(1, 2)
-- not an issue in US law since Burstyn v Wilson 1952
1.
blasphemy cannot
be prosecuted under US constitution
2.
film is
protected under 1st Amendment
C.
Heresy - not a
real issue since Epperson v Arkansas 1968 (Darwinism prohibited) stopped
censorship of ideas on religious grounds
D.
Immoral ideas
(usually sex) cannot be censored:
Kingsley international Pictures v Regents (NY) 1959 (5, 6) [ Lady Chatterley=s Lover ]
II.
Obscenity
A.
Rosen v US 1897
established the "Hicklin Rule" in America
1.
tendency to
corrupt those whose minds are open to such corruption
2.
all work must be at child level?
3.
isolated
passages may be judged
4.
This standard
was eroded over time before Roth
B.
Miller v Cal. 1973 The current
major case on obscenity (explicit sexual illustrations in ads). New
Test of Obscenity
1.
average person applying contemporary community standards
finds the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2.
the work depicts
or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law (or which a judge/jury believes was intended by the
law)
3.
the work, taken
as a whole, (by a reasonable person) lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value (SLAPS test) Dissents in
recent cases
a.
It is impossible
to solve the vagueness problem b. A lack of "fair notice," therefore, follows. That causes:
(1)
a chilling
effect on expression, even legal expression, and
(2)
institutional stress on the government
c.
There was no
18th Century exception to free speech for obscenity
d.
Brennan proposes
consenting adult rule – all is protected for C.A.
C.
Other Obscenity Issues
1.
NEA obscenity
rules -- are on and off amd not very enforceable but the government can use a “decency”
standard for government funding (and broadcasting
2.
Child
pornography
a.
rules can be
more strict than regular obscenity law (NY v Ferber,
1982), and
b.
there is no right to private possession (Osbourne v Ohio 1990).
c.
Child
Pornography Prevention Act finds altered or digital photos appearing to be
children not child porn (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 2002)
3.
Porn as
offensive against women's civil rights,
Indy case 1984 raise efficacy question again and was found
unconstitutional
4.
Using zoning
laws to restrict porn shops is OK if not overbroad and not licensing
5.
RICCO laws -
asset seizure, no seizure until after an
advocacy hearing but seizure can occur after (Alexander v US, 1993)
6.
Nude dancing can
be restricted |