Box listeners: pornography by American constitutional protection?

Reporter: Wang Nan | WashingtonApril 29, 2010

Photograph: Wang Nan USA VOA

Porn case often fought all the way to the Supreme Court of USA

USA VOA Wang Nan

Washington does not become visible in a strip bar

*"I see it, know it is"*

Americans have long used English common law judge "obscene". In 1957, the Supreme Court ruled USA clear: "obscene" is not within the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. The justices listed three "obscene" standard, including: the theme on the whole are in order to meet the concupiscence (prurient interest); the contemporary community standards in breach of the material, "obviously objectionable" (patently offensive); third, the material has no positive social values.

However, what is somewhat valuable legal pornography? What is purely to satisfy the illegal pornographic evil? People still Different people, different views.

In 1964, "Yakebielisi of Ohio" (Jacobellis v. Ohio) in the case of American, Supreme Court ruling, Ohio a cinema manager Nick. Yakebielisi showings of the French film "lover" (The Lovers) does not belong to "pornographic" film, protected by the constitution, the Russian authorities on his fine is improper.

However, this movie is not "obscene", what is "obscene"? The justices seem to say no. Justice Potter Stewart simply wrote in his decision: "I see it, know it is." (I know it when I see it)

This you know the judge lack of legal certainty, not continue to lead in the lawsuit. Is the individual government censorship officials feel uncomfortable, or moral conservative social groups feel ugly, can put a piece or a recreational facilities blocked?

*Miller test The definition of obscenity*

In 1973, America Supreme Court in "Miller in California" (Miller v. California) in the case, and the enactment of the so-called "Miller test (Miller test)".

In the important case, the appellant Marvin. Miller is a pornographic books mail business, he was California court convicted of distributing obscene materials crime. American Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed, sporadic and sale of obscene material is not protected by the constitution, but the justices said at the same time, the state must be carefully formulate supervision obscene material laws, to prevent the risk of restrictions on freedom of expression.

The justices in the ruling on whether "obscene" lists the three part inspection standard.

First, "ordinary people" with "community standard" is a contemporary works on the whole is satisfied that concupiscence.

Second, according to the definition of relevant state law, the work is with "obviously objectionable" (patently offensive) of the depiction of sexual or excretory function.

Third, the work as a whole is the lack of a serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

"Miller test" are still in use. This standard is not referring to the moral sense of the most intense and sensitive person, not national standards or the traditional concept, but "ordinary people" and "contemporary community standards". In addition, some pornography defenders can also Li Chen, this works is artistic. While the authorities are "obscene" in court against a work, must bear the burden of proof.

*Strip bar is non dispute*

In addition to erotic literature, art and film disputes, the justices of the Supreme Court also several rambling about strip bar is non. In accordance with the state and federal levels some court cases, nude dancing as long as they do not constitute "obscene", is still protected by the first amendment to the constitution, a certain degree of however, governments around the world (including City Hall) although not generally prohibited, but can be in accordance with the local public opinion and interests, through the land division (zoning), alcohol license approval and other means to restrict and exclude the adult entertainment.

For example, the government of a city can be specified, residential areas, schools or churches around is not a strip bar. Some places also limits the performers dress and action. Some of the restrictions and penalties caused legal proceedings, both sides have a point.

USA Supreme Court ruled in 1991, state legislation banning naked in public and striptease performers must be in the key position slightly to hide, this does not violate the constitution.

At present, throughout the different provisions on the strip bars, performance form and degree of exposure to different city strip bar, also in accordance with the provisions of different communities.

America often hear someone say: Washington is the power, money and erotic intersection of the aisle. Once at the downtown Washington neon bright red light district, however, the adult erotic services has long been a block office replace sb.. In the 1990 years, Washington City Hall regulations, not to the new strip bar awarded licence. The existing strip bar is protected, can maintain their liquor license, however, large-scale stage a comeback of adult erotic entertainment industry to avoid the phenomenon of. Of course, this does not include the underground sex industry.

*Network times to crackdown on pornographic? *

The advent of the Internet age, adult entertainment industry to keep pace with the world, become an Internet industry. No entity boundary network space brings new challenges to the "community standards", and on the network some offbeat and extreme adult pornographic content, such as shocking sexual devastation, far exceeded the general "I have". How to define network era "obscene"? For those "objectionable" content, need not to need to "strike hard"?

In the fight against pornography on the issue, USA federal, state and local law enforcement in different periods have different. Some conservative communities may tend to the "strike hard" measures, and other community may pay more attention to protect freedom of speech.

In President George W. Bush's Republican government, the Federal Ministry of justice set up against pornographic task force, some people have been prosecuted and convicted. However, some conservatives complain, Federal Bureau of investigation and the federal prosecutors in the "9/11" event and then not enthusiastic with the "anti vice", and the democratic government of President Obama came to power, more do not attach importance to the.

In 2010 February, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Obama's minister of justice Eric. Holder in the Republican Senator BiWen said, under his leadership the Justice Department will use the existing "limited resources" to enforce the law on anti pornographic and continue to pursue the "has the potential to cause maximum damage". He said, "the first amendment considerations, but this does not mean that we do not pay attention to the implementation of the law."

It is to be emphasized, child pornography, including Internet child pornography, in USA serious illegal and object to crack down on local government.

*Welcome letter from the audience*

Welcome from the audience America listeners mailbox. Send letter to: Beijing P.O. Box No. 9171, postal code 100600. You can also email USA voa. Please send e-mail to: Chinese@VOAnews.com. We may choose sowing your comment or answer your questions.