erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (07/28/88)
In article <4535@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: > alt.sex Postings of a prurient nature. Hey Gene, how about changing the wording of that definition? Under obscentity laws in some states (and in some federal courts) obscene materials (among other things) "are of a prurient nature." Some laws are much more liberal, but I think using a legal definition of obscentity, even if it's only used by some states, is begging for trouble. Imagine Judge Homer Redneck looking over his child's shoulder as the child reads Usenet -- "Boy, what ing God's name is *that*? My god! COMMUNISTS! Trying to CORRUPT our CHILDREN's minds by talking about SEX!" Just a paranoid thought from someone who grew up in a state that just made "having obscene materials or wording, or materials of a prurient nature on the outside of an automobile operated on Louisiana highways." Guess I have to ditch my "Fuck you, cop" sticker before I go to Louisiana again. :-) (Just joking, I have no such sticker -- the Dead Kennedys sticker is enough trouble on its own.) -- Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
rsk@staff.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (07/28/88)
In article <1212@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >In article <4535@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: >> alt.sex Postings of a prurient nature. > >Hey Gene, how about changing the wording of that definition? > >Under obscentity laws in some states (and in some federal courts) >obscene materials (among other things) "are of a prurient nature." Some >laws are much more liberal, but I think using a legal definition of >obscentity, even if it's only used by some states, is begging for trouble. All obscene materials are of a prurient nature; but not all prurient materials are of an obscene nature, or at least that's how the terms seem to be used in case law. (E.g. "redeeming social value" and all that.) I feel Gene's choice of words is quite accurate, and does not imply obscenity, even (and especially) in the legal sense. For reference, see Roth v. United States (1957), Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) and Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) for an interesting, if not terribly enlightening, viewpoint on the Supreme Court's use of the term "prurient interest" in the resolution of obscenity cases. I am not an attorney, Rich Kulawiec