Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Lessons Of Miller And Hudnut: On Proposing A Pornography Ordinance That Passes Constitutional Muster, Martin Karo, Marcia Mcbrian
The Lessons Of Miller And Hudnut: On Proposing A Pornography Ordinance That Passes Constitutional Muster, Martin Karo, Marcia Mcbrian
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note first reviews the evolution of obscenity law, concentrating on the modern obscenity test formulated in Miller v. California, including its requirement that any obscenity prosecution must be based on a state statute, not merely on the common law. It then examines the elements of the Miller test, arguing that legislatures may determine statewide "community standards" of patently offensive depictions of sexual conduct and discusses the permissibility of legislative expansion of pornography regulation beyond the present boundaries. Part II examines the federal courts' analysis of the civil rights-based antipornography ordinance passed in Indianapolis. Part III suggests standards for …
Hard-Core Pornography: A Proposal For A Per Se Rule, Bruce A. Taylor
Hard-Core Pornography: A Proposal For A Per Se Rule, Bruce A. Taylor
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Part I of this Article discusses the history and pervasiveness of the pornography problem. Part II explains the current legal test for obscenity, as evolved from Miller v. California, with an emphasis on terms commonly used in the definition of obscenity. Part III examines the problems in applying Miller that suggest that the application of a per se hard-core pornography rule may be appropriate. Finally, Part IV presents a proposal for a per se hard-core pornography rule, similar to child pornography laws existing in many jurisdictions and upheld by the Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber. This Article concludes …
Comparison Evidence In Obscenity Trials, Marguerite Munson Lentz
Comparison Evidence In Obscenity Trials, Marguerite Munson Lentz
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Article critiques the approach endorsed in Hamling, particularly regarding the Court's failure to consider how the presentation of proof in an obscenity trial affects the defendant's constitutional rights. The Article urges that relevant comparison evidence should be admissible despite the risk of confusion or the opportunity to present expert testimony, and furthermore, that a court should be required to make explicit its findings regarding the relevancy of comparison evidence. Part I of the Article demonstrates the constitutional significance to the obscenity defendant of evidence, particularly comparison exhibits, bearing on prevailing community standards. Part II considers the assessment of …