According to an article in The Columbus Dispatch, in late September, Ohio’s 10th District Court of Appeals decided to uphold the conviction and jail sentencing of Sheila Kearns (Bush, p.1). Kearns was a former substitute teacher at East High School in Columbus, Ohio who was “found guilty of disseminating material harmful to juveniles” (Bush, p.1). This conviction was due to Kearns showing the original “ABCs of Death” to the Spanish classes she was substituting in for that day (Bush, p.1). In the original trial, Kearns admitted that she showed the film because she thought it contained “Spanish-language scenes”, however Kearns had not actually ever seen the film and had her back turned the entire time (Bush, p.2). The appellate court reviewed
…show more content…
The Miller test contains three points courts must consider when deciding on obscene material: “the average person…would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests; the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by state law; and the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (Trager et al., p.506). The first ruling of the court in Kearns case deals with is it being patently offensive under Ohio law. In order to be patently offensive, material must contain “hard-core sexual conduct” which the court in Kearns case decided “ABCs of Death” did (Trager et al., p.504). The second reasoning in the case involves prurient interest. Prurient interest refers to an average person finding the work inciting “morbid or lascivious longings” (Trager et al., p.502). The court also stated that the SLAPS test applies in this case. The SLAPS test declares, “material must lack any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (Trager et al., p.505). The appellate court seems to have correctly applied the Miller test in this case, however it is important to note that it is difficult to define what the “average” person would find sexually explicit which could raise some issues. This film would most likely …show more content…
It is also difficult to determine whether or not the material in the film was obscene since I haven’t seen it. Usually I would agree with the judge’s decision, but one of the dissenting judges, Gary Tyack, opinion makes me second guess the ruling. Tyack wrote that the “main theses of the movie were violence and death, not sex, although some vignettes included sex” (Bush, p.2). Additionally, the students who were shown parts of this movie were 16 and 17, and many of them have probably seen images like those in the film (Bush, p.2). The entire film is two hours long, but Kearn only showed 47-minutes of it (Bush, p.3). Tyack even states that “the vignettes the court found to be harmful or obscene appeared near the end” (Bush, p.3). Due to this Tyack determined that “the state did not prove that any students saw any offensive vignette…since several of the vignettes are harmless and are not certainly not obscene” (Bush, p.3). Taking all of this into consideration, I think the court should determine which vignettes were shown and then decide if they were obscene. I don’t believe obscene material should be shown in schools, but especially today with the internet, teenagers are able to access content that is sexually explicit much more easily. Many teenagers might not consider certain films or material obscene to the extent that I
The Miller test contains three points courts must consider when deciding on obscene material: “the average person…would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests; the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by state law; and the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (Trager et al., p.506). The first ruling of the court in Kearns case deals with is it being patently offensive under Ohio law. In order to be patently offensive, material must contain “hard-core sexual conduct” which the court in Kearns case decided “ABCs of Death” did (Trager et al., p.504). The second reasoning in the case involves prurient interest. Prurient interest refers to an average person finding the work inciting “morbid or lascivious longings” (Trager et al., p.502). The court also stated that the SLAPS test applies in this case. The SLAPS test declares, “material must lack any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (Trager et al., p.505). The appellate court seems to have correctly applied the Miller test in this case, however it is important to note that it is difficult to define what the “average” person would find sexually explicit which could raise some issues. This film would most likely …show more content…
It is also difficult to determine whether or not the material in the film was obscene since I haven’t seen it. Usually I would agree with the judge’s decision, but one of the dissenting judges, Gary Tyack, opinion makes me second guess the ruling. Tyack wrote that the “main theses of the movie were violence and death, not sex, although some vignettes included sex” (Bush, p.2). Additionally, the students who were shown parts of this movie were 16 and 17, and many of them have probably seen images like those in the film (Bush, p.2). The entire film is two hours long, but Kearn only showed 47-minutes of it (Bush, p.3). Tyack even states that “the vignettes the court found to be harmful or obscene appeared near the end” (Bush, p.3). Due to this Tyack determined that “the state did not prove that any students saw any offensive vignette…since several of the vignettes are harmless and are not certainly not obscene” (Bush, p.3). Taking all of this into consideration, I think the court should determine which vignettes were shown and then decide if they were obscene. I don’t believe obscene material should be shown in schools, but especially today with the internet, teenagers are able to access content that is sexually explicit much more easily. Many teenagers might not consider certain films or material obscene to the extent that I