• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/7

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

7 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Miller v. California, USSC 1973
Three-part test for obscenity. High court created the three-part Miller test to determine legal obscenity. Less interested in the case itself, but the significance of the Miller test, the test is still used today has withstood the test of time.
1) average (adult) person, applying contemporary community standards would find the work, take as a whole, appeals to prurient (sexual or lusty) interests

2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently (obviously) offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, USSC 1978
*PAY CLOSE ATTENTION* George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” comedy routine was broadcast in the afternoon by a New York radio station. Radio station included a warning before broadcasting Carlin’s skit that it contained “sensitive language that might be regarded as offensive to some." Father, who heard the radio broadcast with his son while driving in the car, complained to the FCC. What were the seven words? “Sh1t, piss, fuckk, cuntt, cocksuckr, motherfuckerr and titss." Court ruled that these words were indecent—beyond accepted standards of morality. Court said FCC can regulate the airwaves because they are pervasive and children have easy access to them (6a.m. to 10p.m.). Safe harbor—from 10p.m. to 6a.m., broadcasters may broadcast indecent material without penalty.
RENO V. ACLU, USSC 1997 (Janet Reno under Pres. Clinton)
Federal government passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996, an effort to criminalize obscene and indecent messages on the Internet. Main motivation was to protect children. Should the Internet have the same First Amendment protection as books and newspapers, or should it be regulated as broadcasters? If they decide Internet is treated like newspapers and books, then it’ll get a ton of protection. Court ruled since the Internet does not use public airwaves and is not as invasive as broadcasting, it deserves the highest First Amendment protection. Huge victory for free expression.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, USSC 2002
Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Are computer images that “only appear” to depict a minor engaged in a sex act legally obscene? Court said no, not legally obscene. Why? Because the government failed to prove a link between these computer images and the actual exploitation of children. (we’re not going to outlaw these laws because its distasteful and offensive, doesn’t mean its punishable) Even though distasteful, its still legal.
Pornography arguments
Some argue that pornography is intended for adults and is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. Others argue against pornography, based on moral or religious reasons. Another argument: Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar argues that pornography can be harmful to women (see blue box on pg. 532). Counter arguments: Nadine Strossen, ACLU national president, argues that censoring pornography is more harmful to women (see blue box on pg. 533) her stance is to be more balanced so that porn can be for all adults and of all genders.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
USSC heard oral arguments in fall 2010. California law bans the sale of violent video games to minors. 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the law declining to extend obscenity to prohibit depictions of violence in video games. They said there’s no proof that virtual violence leads to real violence. In June 2011, the court agreed, 7-2, with the 9th Circuit decision.
FCC v. Fox, USSC 2012
Case involved fleeting expletives and partial nudity on broadcast TV. USSC ruled, 8-0, that broadcasters have a constitutional right to be warned in advance what is prohibited. Court did not strike down the FCC policy, but suggested that the policy may violate the First Amendment.