Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obscenity Case

Justice is reporting that Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear the obscenity case of Nitke v. Gonzales. From the article: "Even in our federal system of government, the law concerning obscenity is a legal oddity. A photograph that in New York would be considered protected speech under the First Amendment could in Alabama be considered obscene, making the photographer and distributors subject to felony charges. That's a consequence of the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 case, Miller v. California, in which the court ruled that obscenity was essentially a subjective judgment, and called for prosecutors, judges and juries to apply 'community standards' in determining what speech was obscene and what was protected. In the age of the Internet, a new issue has been raised - if something considered free speech in New York is accessible in Alabama, where it's considered obscene, what standard should be used? By rejecting the case, the Supreme Court has left that question open."

Comments

Re:The Supreme Court takes a step forward.SO WRONG

[Pig Hogger]

Obscenity is and should always be defined by the community -- preferably by the household.

This thought is so very wrong!

Dada is a bourgeois, and for him, he shall be the ruler and be able to shove his rulings down the throat of others.

For Dada, the State has not business other than enforcing his business will upon others, and making sure his wage slaves do not rebel against him.

If he wants to impose his will upon someone who lives thousands of miles from him, the State should take all means possible to do so.

As a bourgeois, Dada only wants the whole world to conform to his standard of mediocrity.

Re:The Supreme Court takes a step forward.

[zippthorne]

"No, instead the "New Aged GOP" (cavorting as the Republican Party) has been pushing for a Constitutional Ammendment to stop "gay marriage". I don't know what would be worse -- pushing for laws that are unenforceable because the act takes place behind closed doors (usually) or a Constitutional Ammendment to make another group second class citizens because it disagrees with religious beliefs."

What? the position is about legal options. It's not about preventing an act that occurs "behind closed doors" but about not supporting that act through official documentation. If gays just wanted to have a ceremony in a private location, very few people would care or object. If you're talking about anti-sodomy laws, that's another issue entirely.

"'SOME Republicans want to regulate what is done to a living fetus; it's not about a woman's body, it's about whether the fetus has a right to life. I recall a certain Republican president standing up for the rights of blacks about 150 years ago. A lot of Democrats didn't think they had rights, either.'

Illegal comparison. Move along."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? How is comparing the plight of a class of people who aren't considered people by the law to the plight of a class of people who weren't considered people by the law an invalid or unlawful comparison?

"Pro New Aged GOP speak. Bzzzt. Move along. The New Aged GOP wants to scare everyone into believing that they have nothing to hide, no rights to privacy, and that Big Business and Big Government know what's best for them."

What are you the Comic Book Guy of political discussions? provide a point to refute the claim or at least some support for your counter claim. There is no need for the word "bzzt" in a civil discourse. Try to avoid using popular buzzwords as your primary argument. It's a bit like ending your argument with the phrase, "Beam me up Scotty, There's no intelligent life donw here." It's trite and bumper-sticker worthy, but ultimately divisive and counterproductive.