We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
"GOD HATES FAGS" IS NOT THE SAME AS "FUCK THE DRAFT": INTRODUCING THE TARGETED, NON-SEXUAL OBSCENITY DOCTRINE.
- Authors
Lamparello, Adam
- Abstract
Is there a meaningful constitutional difference between images depicting child pornography and a video showing a woman shoving her six-inch heels through the left eye of a helpless kitten? No. Well, there is one difference. Some depictions of child pornography are fake. Every video of a kitten being tortured or a rabbit being dismembered is real. In Miller v. California, the United States Supreme Court erred by limiting the definition of obscenity to speech appealing to the prurient (sexual) interest. Speech having no relationship to sex can be so vile that it lacks social, literary, or artistic value, contributes nothing to public debate, and causes severe emotional distress. It is called non-sexual obscenity. Non-sexual obscenity may, but does not always, intimidate others, incite imminent violence, defame, or have a sexual component. In all cases, it traumatizes, humiliates, and shocks its audience, and neither the original purpose nor the plain text of the First Amendment was intended to protect this particularly vile form of speech. This article argues that non-sexual obscenity can--and should--be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and in some instances be banned completely.
- Subjects
CHILD pornography laws; OBSCENITY (Law); CHILD abuse; CONSTITUTIONAL law; MILLER v. California (Supreme Court case)
- Publication
UMKC Law Review, 2015, Vol 84, Issue 1, p61
- ISSN
0047-7575
- Publication type
Article