Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

Pornography As Pollution, John C. Nagle Oct 2016

Pornography As Pollution, John C. Nagle

John Copeland Nagle

Pornography is often compared to pollution. But little effort has been made to consider what it means to describe pornography as a pollution problem, even as many legal scholars have concluded that the law has failed to control internet pornography. Opponents of pornography maintain passionate convictions about how sexually-explicit materials harm both those who are exposed to them and the broader cultural environment. Viewers of pornography may generally hold less fervent beliefs, but champions of free speech and of a free internet object to anti-pornography regulations with strong convictions of their own. The challenge is how to address the widespread …


Abstract Principle V. Contextual Conceptions Of Harm: A Comment On R. V. Butler, Jamie Cameron Oct 2015

Abstract Principle V. Contextual Conceptions Of Harm: A Comment On R. V. Butler, Jamie Cameron

Jamie Cameron

This comment provides a critique of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Butler, which held that section 163(8) of the Criminal Code, defining obscenity, is a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before discussing the Charter, the Court expanded the scope of section 163(8) to include a prohibition against sexually explicit material that is degrading or dehumanizing. Initially, the author is critical of the Court's methodology, which enlarged section 163(8) at the expense of expressive freedom, without even mentioning the Charter. Once the Court had interpreted …


First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno Sep 2015

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno

James E. Moliterno

“ ‘I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss L words and the words you can't say . . .the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves... the ones that will curve your spine [and] grow hair on your hands ....’ While this is the satiric opinion of George Carlin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court have embraced it as their genuine opinion.' They have decided to protect the public from the fate of hearing Carlin's social criticism regarding seven ‘dirty’ words.”


First Amendment Martyr, First Amendment Opportunist: Commentary On Larry Flynt's Role In The Free Speech Debate, Rodney A. Smolla Jul 2015

First Amendment Martyr, First Amendment Opportunist: Commentary On Larry Flynt's Role In The Free Speech Debate, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.


"God Hates Fags" Isn't The Same As "Fuck The Draft": Introducing The Non-Sexual Obscenity Doctrine, Adam Lamparello Oct 2014

"God Hates Fags" Isn't The Same As "Fuck The Draft": Introducing The Non-Sexual Obscenity Doctrine, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.


Dropping F-Bombs At The Supreme Court, Alan E. Garfield Jan 2012

Dropping F-Bombs At The Supreme Court, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.


First Amendment Protects Crude Protest Of Police Action, Martin A. Schwartz Jul 2011

First Amendment Protects Crude Protest Of Police Action, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.


Obscenity And The Right To Be Let Alone: The Balancing Of Constitutional Rights, Stephen W. Gard Jan 1973

Obscenity And The Right To Be Let Alone: The Balancing Of Constitutional Rights, Stephen W. Gard

Stephen W. Gard

While on the one hand a conceptual framework for obscenity cases is essential, it is equally true that the Supreme Court has in the past accepted theories proposed by commentators without making significant progress in extricating itself from the quagmire. In light of this situation, the purpose of this Note is not to urge the Court to accept any new theory for dealing with obscenity, but, rather, to suggest a conceptual framework present in the results of its prior decisions and to urge its explicit acceptance by the Court. No attempt will be made to be faithful to all the …