Law Commons^™

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

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.”

Obscenity - New First Amendment Standards; Miller V. California, Stacy E. Wolfe

Akron Law Review

It has been over fifteen years since the Supreme Court embarked on its precarious course of determining the Constitutional boundaries for control of obscenity by the state and federal governments. The Court's first attempt to define the meaning of obscenity and ultimately determine the Constitutional protection afforded this expression was in Roth v. United States. What has followed can only be characterized as a series of irreconcilable conflicts and discrepancies that have left the law in this area in total confusion. Recently, the Court in Miller v. California has again attempted to provide "concrete guidelines to isolate 'hard core' pornography …

Obscenity - Liquor Regulations; California V. Larue, Richard Bernstein

Akron Law Review

The state has the power to regulate the distribution of liquor and enforce health and safety regulations, but the state may not broadly stifle First Amendment freedoms when doing so. "The breath of legislative abridgement must be viewed in the light of less drastic means for achieving the same basic purpose." s The Court has consistently held that only a compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the state's constitutional power to regulate can justify limiting First Amendment freedoms.

The Control Of Seditious Libel As A Basis For The Development Of The Law Of Obscenity, Ronald W. Eades

Akron Law Review

In the United States there are government controls of at least two types of press, seditious libel and obscenity. Even though the first amendment protects speech and press, libels against the government and obscenity have not been given free reign, and have been consistently controlled. Although the conflicts over seditious libel aided the development of current standards of freedom of the press, the controls of obscenity have not yet completed that development and are inconsistent with those first amendment standards.

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa

Akron Law Review

“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”

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

Akron Law Review

“ ‘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

Rod Smolla

Not available.

Paps' A.M. V. City Of Erie: The Wrong Route To The Right Direction, Michael Mcbride

Akron Law Review

This note will examine the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, by looking at the policy behind the decision, while also examining the decision in light of the previous United States Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. Glen Theatre. The note will examine why the decision in Pap’s A.M. was an unnecessary misinterpretation of the United States Constitution. It will examine how and why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could have settled the issue of nude dancing in Pennsylvania and avoided review by the United States Supreme Court by deciding the case under the Pennsylvania Constitution …

The Need To Criminalize Revenge Porn: How A Law Protecting Victims Can Avoid Running Afoul Of The First Amendment, Adrienne N. Kitchen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Revenge porn occurs when someone posts sexually explicit images of their former paramour on the web, often with contact information for the victim’s work and home. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of victims. Victims lose or quit their jobs; they are harassed by strangers; some change their name or alter their appearance. Some victims resort to suicide; others are stalked, assaulted, or killed. Civil suits fail to remove the images or deter perpetrators. Current criminal laws are insufficient in several common instances. These shortcomings mean there is a need to criminalize revenge porn.

Revenge porn is obscene and …

How Do We Know When Speech Is Of Low Value?, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.