Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Proposed pornography ordinance
Message-ID: <39400011@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 12:46:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.39400011
Posted: Fri Nov 15 12:46:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 21:04:45 EST
References: <39400010@uiucdcs>
Lines: 55
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcs:39400010:uiucdcs:39400011:000:3206
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcewan    Nov 15 11:46:00 1985


>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

Well, that's an interesting and informative answer, but that's not what I
asked. I want to know if the phrase "sexually explicit" has a well defined
legal meaning. Is my impression that *this definition* of pornography is
so vague that any work containing a woman could be called pornography correct?

			Scott McEwan
			{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

"A flash in front of my eyes ... I blink ... open my eyes to ... discover I am
 a dog in a pickup truck full of garbage ... no one but me sees the lid blow
 off the can ... it's 14 miles to the dump ... this is ... at last ... heaven."