The question to argue is: Should pornography be restricted by law? I don't know what parts of the law this applies to in regard to the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, but I'd expect it's under personal freedom... The other part of this is more interview based, asking for your own professional opinion on it, and whether I can quote you in my essay. Thank you very much in advance,
Kat
There've been quite a few answering that I should be doing my own research, note I've said in every response that I am doing so. I asked for direction on specific articles, or cases, which I was not finding online. I have spent weeks compiling data, still coming up with little.
I also asked for a "testimony" which is the word of an expert, that I can quote as his or her professional opinion on the subject I have asked about. That is one of the strongest ways to back any argumentative essay.
I've learned plenty on my own, through my text and don't appreciate the insinuation that this site isn't here for "that" sort of help. It's for help period. It took moments for one kind gentleman to answer, which sent me in search of the things he mentioned.
If you don't have anything productive to add to this so I can research it, please don't say anything. I came here after reading the community standards and the "about" section of this site, and in no way am I doing harm or wrong by asking my question.
Perry Allan CraftGeneral Practice LawyerNashville, TN ·
Several laws, federal and state, restrict or criminalize pornography, but on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of pornography. The popular definition of pornography or obscenity is broader than the legal definition. The legal basis for narrowing the definition of pornography is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which in part reads: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The Supreme Court protects freedom of speech, even when that speech is offensive, in poor taste, disgusting, or many would view as pornographic. In Miller v. California, the high Court has ruled that speech is pornographic and obscene only when "(1) the proscribed material ... depict(s) or describe(s) sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, (2) the conduct ... (that is forbidden) must be specifically described in the law, and (3) the work must, taken as a whole, lack serious value and must appeal to a prurient interest in sex. What is patently offensive is to be determined by applying community values." A local jury hears the case and makes a decision subject to a careful review by appellate courts. Several web sites, both written by or for lawyers and non-lawyers, discuss the meaning of pornography and obscenity and have links to or reprint the cases. The high Court has been wary of giving the government too much power to control and regulate speech. The real blow to governmental regulation of materials that the government deemed obscene was decided in the late 1950s. By virtue of federal laws and administrative regulation and practice, the Post Office refused to deliver books deemed obscene or pornographic (and the Post Office took a broad view of what materials were deemed obscene and pornographic). Under its practice, the Post Office declined to deliver by mail D.H. Lawrence's novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover, written in the 1920s. Lawrence was or is viewed as an important novelist. The American publisher of Lady Chatterley's Lover challenged the ban through an administrative challenge. After reviewing the then current, controlling Supreme Court decision, Roth, the publisher prevailed and the novel could be shipped via the mails. This ruling, not by the Supreme Court, opened the doors for ready distribution of materials that many thought was pornographic but the legal definition of pornography was being limited. As a result, the mails could be used to send materials that formerly were deemed pornographic. Most high Court decisions on pornography or obscenity consider whether certain acts, depictions, pictures or videos violate state or federal criminal laws.
Mark M CheserDUI / DWI AttorneyUnion, NJNJ licensed ·
Start with the session laws from the legislature on the criminal statute. That will give you the intent of the legislature. I can only speak for myself, but on the statement issue call and speak directly to the attorney.
James Alexander AbateDUI / DWI AttorneyWestfield, NJ ·
Start with the communication decency act which was passed by congress in the mid 90's. It would have required a credit card to access pornographic material in order to prevent children from accessing illicit material online. It was subsequently found unconstitutional by the supremes.
I agree with everyone else that doing your own research is the best way to learn the material. You need to read everything you can, conversations and internet answers do not provide the depth of analysis that reading well thought-out written materials provide. That said, if you are studying this area in class and have looked at the class room materials, they should have mentioned the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in the Miller v. California case. If they haven't then there is a problem with the class. If they have, you should review those materials and lecture notes and start there for your research on the issue over decades since it was decided.
An argument can be made that "pornography" [a concept you have not defined] should have restrictions, and an argument can also be made that it should not have restrictions. A legal question would involve whether a specific action could properly be prosecuted under present laws, as interpreted by the courts. A question of what the courts "should" do is not really a legal question, but is an ideological question.
