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.

[general_re]

If I'm in my community where it's legal, I'm outside of your communities' jurisdiction, there's not a lot you can do about that.

As long as you're willing to overlook the Full Faith and Credit and Extradition clauses of the Constitution, sure. Anyway, why not? We'll shred the First Amendment in the name of community standards - what's a few more bits of the Constitution shredded along with it?

Re:The Supreme Court takes a step forward.

[Pig Hogger]

You must have a pretty small brain to be impressed by DADA's cavemen arguments...