Thursday, March 12, 2020

3rd fact sheet Essays - Human Sexuality, Pornography Law

3rd fact sheet Essays - Human Sexuality, Pornography Law 3rd Fact Sheet By Dany SADER An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality morality of the time. In the HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States United States of America , issues of obscenity raise issues of limitations on the HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech freedom of speech and of HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press the press , which are otherwise protected by the HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution First Amendment to the HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution Constitution of the United States . Child pornography Child pornography refers to images or films ; as such, visual child pornography is a record of HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse child sexual abuse . In HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber New York v. Ferber , HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_458 458 HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports U.S. HYPERLINK https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/747/ 747 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that child pornography need not be legally obscene in order to be outlawed. The Court ruled that in contrast to the types of images considered in Miller , images that depicted underlying harm to children need not appeal to the prurient interest of the average person, portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, nor be considered holistically, in order to be proscribed. Another difference between U.S. constitutional law concerning obscenity and that governing child pornography is that the Supreme Court ruled in HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia Stanley v. Georgia , HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_394 394 HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports U.S. HYPERLINK https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/557/ 557 (1969), that possession of obscene material could not be criminalized, while in HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_v._Ohio Osborne v. Ohio , HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_495 495 HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports U.S. HYPERLINK https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/103/ 103 (1990), the high court ruled that possession of child pornography could be criminalized. The reason was that the motive for criminalizing child pornography possession was to destroy a m arket for the exploitative use of children rather than to prevent the material from poisoning the minds of its viewers. The three dissenting justices in that case argued, While the sexual exploitation of children is undoubtedly a serious problem, Ohio may employ other weapons to combat it. Censorship in film This is most notably shown with the X rating under which some films are categorized. The most notable films given an X rating were HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(film) Deep Throat (1972) and HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones The Devil in Miss Jones (1973). These films show explicit, non-simulated, penetrative sex that was presented as part of a reasonable plot with respectable production values. Some state authorities issued injunctions against such films to protect local community standards; in New York, the print of Deep Throat was seized mid-run, and the film's exhibitors we re found guilty of promoting obscenity. According to the documentary HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated This Film Is Not Yet Rated , films that include gay sex (even if implied) or female pleasure have been more harshly censored than their heterosexual, male counterparts. The HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) issues HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system ratings for motion pictures exhibited and distributed commercially to the public in the United States; the ratings are issued through the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA). The intent of the rating system is to provide information about the content of motion pictures so parents can determine whether an individual motion picture is suitable for viewing by their children. Canada Section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of obscenity. Officially termed as Offen s es Tending to Corrupt Morals,the Canadian prohibited class of articles that are to be legally included as obscene things is very broad, including text-only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or any other obscene thing that according to Section 163(8) has a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence is deemed to be obscene under the current law. The current law states 163. (1) Every person commits an offen s e who makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates or has in their possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or any other obscene thing. The HYPERLINK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canad a_Border_Services_Agency Canada Border Services Agency seizes items it labels obscene. In 1993, Canadian police arrested the 19-year-old writer of a fictional sex story The Forestwood Kids,however, the case was dismissed in 1995. In February 2009,