Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mb2c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Proposed pornography ordinance
Message-ID: <336@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 13:17:08 EST
Article-I.D.: mb2c.336
Posted: Wed Nov 13 13:17:08 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 04:38:44 EST
References: <39400010@uiucdcs>
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Lines: 47

> The following is a definition of pornography taken from a proposed
> anti-pornography ordinance
> > 
> >      "Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit  subordination
> > of  women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or
> > (i) women  are  presented  dehumanized  as sexual  objects, things, 
> > or  commodities;  or  (ii)  women  are presented as sexual objects
> > who enjoy  pain  or  humiliation;  or (iii) women are presented as
> > sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or 
> > (iv) women are  presented  as  sexual objects tied up or cut
> > up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
> > (v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission, servility,
> > or display; or (vi)  women's  body  parts-- including but not limited
> > to vagina,  breasts,  or  buttocks--are exhibited  such  that  women
> > are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented as whores by
> > nature;  or (viii)  women  are presented as being penetrated by objects
> > or animals; or (ix) women are presented in scenarios of  degradation,
> > injury, torture, shown  as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or 
> > hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.
> 
> My objection is that the definition is so vague that it is not
> clear what is and is not covered by it. Does the phrase "sexually explicit"
> have a precise legal definition? If
> I get turned on by leather coats in a Sears circular, does that make it
> "sexually explicit"? I'm not being facetious here - I've seen many things
> that I thought were perfectly unoffensive and had no sexual content denounced
> as "pornography". The sections of the definition are sufficiently broad to
> cover anything that passes the "sexually explicit" part - for instance,
> section vi could be applied to any picture of a woman.
> 
> My impression is that this law is designed to give its supporters a cannon
> they can point at anyone publishing anything they don't like.
> 
> 			Scott McEwan

Typically, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, pornography is
not a protected area of speech.  This a majority opinion.  Some Supreme
Court Justices have held that all speech, including pornography, is protected.
To get to Scott's most important question, speech wholly of a sexually
prurient nature, utterly without social significance, is unprotected
pornographic speech.  I believe that this is the most important aspect of
the proposed law.  It appears to draw in  Supreme Court precedent.
However, this not my area of expertise.  I believe it to be a good guess.
I did purchase a reversible belt that might also "turn Scott on."

			      Mark Reina