Over the years, I have been somewhat more supportive of realizing that an absolutist take on freedoms is unrealistic. We have freedom of speech, not a regime where speech is not regulated. The same applies to regulation of guns ("well-regulated") and we classify in various ways, so some sort of "arbitrary" or "invidious" discrimination rule must be in place. Lines are not always clean, crisp or whatever and pointing this out along the margins (e.g., when debating affirmative action) is only a limited gotcha. People speak in extremes, but it is at times often for effect. Deep down they know what I just said.
We regulate expression lots of ways, including when children are involved. Where are the lines here? Touchy. An early case in the modern era was Butler v. Michigan (1957), which said merely because something can corrupt minors does not mean it could be illegal. The freedom of speech of adults should not be set by the limits of what is appropriate for a child. A decade later, the Supreme Court did allow New York to have stricter rules when selling sexually explicit materials to minors. And, the government can also limit what is broadcast on the radio or "free television" because minors can listen and watch. Given 21st Century blocking technology and the realities of cable and satellite, this might be an outdated thing. It was dubious in the 1970s that George Carlin's routine was blocked. It has value; it isn't just porn or something.
As I have noted in the past, not a big fan of current obscenity laws for adults, which to me amount to content/viewpoint discrimination that seems to me to hit to the core of the First Amendment. Certain types of sexual expression is deemed too tasteless and offensive. Offensive ideas, however, is not the sort of thing the First Amendment should allow to be banned. You can regulate a lot of speech, including disclosure laws in businesses or campaign finance or time/place/manner regulations of various types. But, a basic thing here is not to censor viewpoint. A threat is not that -- you can express the basic idea in a way that is not an illegal assault. Perjury etc. is also different.
But, we still have obscenity laws, though it's hard to know how often they really are enforced. To toss it out there, in our country violence is treated differently, even though it is really a form of porn at times. Thus, the Supreme Court (in a ruling not blatantly obvious really) treated violent video games sold to children different from if you sold them a Playboy. Such sexual puritanism leads to some problems such as teaching children sex education and other countries like France are more comfortable about children being familiar about sex and nudity. So, certain French films, for instance, might have at least partial nudity of teenagers. We do have some photography with revealing poses and the like here, but even that has a few times gotten people in trouble. We have teen sex flicks but the actors tend to be adults especially if there is anything acutely shown.
I am not aware of many Supreme Court cases that deal with use of children in sexually themed film. Surely, there are various films such as those with Brooke Shields that have them. The Supreme Court did protect virtual use of children in such materials. So, cartoon teenagers having sex in non-obscene ways will be allowed. Ditto simulations -- e.g., Romeo and Juliet having sex would involve a girl who is thirteen. Showing an eighteen year old there having simulated sex would be protected unless it violated the in my view arbitrarily vague obscenity laws in place.
But, use of actual minors can get you in trouble. Now, the basic concern here is child pornography, which involves children having sex in ways we basically would find abhorrent. It is child abuse and geared to a certain market of pedophiles. We can target the specific acts but it is often hard to stop that, especially if it is produced overseas. So, a state or the federal government will target possession of the resulting materials. Certain problems can arise regarding proof, excessive punishment and so forth. On a basic level, however, the material seems correctly illegal. See, basically, New York v. Ferber, which held that this need not only involve the stricter rules in place for adult obscenity.
That case involves "films are devoted almost exclusively to depicting young boys masturbating" and even the lawyer for Ferber appealed to overbreadth and alleged that if the prosecutors handled the case better that obscenity laws could have brought a conviction. And, that is what concerns me there -- the law includes "simulated" sex. Take Show Me Love, which is a foreign film about two teenage girls who fall in love. There is a quick scene where masturbation is simulated though it is hidden. Simulated sex is a broad category. So, basically Stevens concurred to say sure this stuff can be prosecuted, but was open to an as applied challenge for stuff that would not be appropriately targeted. This might be an okay policy for child related material.
A later case involved photography by a reputable artist -- "10 color photographs of his partially nude and physically mature 14-year-old stepdaughter, L.S., who at the time was attending modeling school." The law was later amended so only something with "lascivious intent" would be covered. This allowed the core speech question to be avoided though three liberal justices made clear that to them mere nudity, even of minors, is protected speech. Osborne v. Ohio cites a few photos of a male teen (maybe two) in sexual explicit positions, this time merely involving possession. The partial dissent (Osborne won a procedural point) would have protected mere possession here like in Stanley v. Georgia. The dissent, as in the past case, also was concerned about the law being overboard though again the law did not cover mere nudity.
Various cases over the years protected minors in matters involving sexual matters such as their access to contraceptives and abortion. Minors in various ways will be involved with sexual materials both as viewers and participants. The proper line drawing here is tricky given it is valid to treat children differently given their lack of maturity and the possibility of abuse including lack of consent. Nonetheless, an excessive policy here is not appropriate. And, other concerns, including privacy of the home, should be weighed in the balance.
Free speech is not absolute but exceptions should be treated carefully even when "taboos" are involved.
We regulate expression lots of ways, including when children are involved. Where are the lines here? Touchy. An early case in the modern era was Butler v. Michigan (1957), which said merely because something can corrupt minors does not mean it could be illegal. The freedom of speech of adults should not be set by the limits of what is appropriate for a child. A decade later, the Supreme Court did allow New York to have stricter rules when selling sexually explicit materials to minors. And, the government can also limit what is broadcast on the radio or "free television" because minors can listen and watch. Given 21st Century blocking technology and the realities of cable and satellite, this might be an outdated thing. It was dubious in the 1970s that George Carlin's routine was blocked. It has value; it isn't just porn or something.
As I have noted in the past, not a big fan of current obscenity laws for adults, which to me amount to content/viewpoint discrimination that seems to me to hit to the core of the First Amendment. Certain types of sexual expression is deemed too tasteless and offensive. Offensive ideas, however, is not the sort of thing the First Amendment should allow to be banned. You can regulate a lot of speech, including disclosure laws in businesses or campaign finance or time/place/manner regulations of various types. But, a basic thing here is not to censor viewpoint. A threat is not that -- you can express the basic idea in a way that is not an illegal assault. Perjury etc. is also different.
But, we still have obscenity laws, though it's hard to know how often they really are enforced. To toss it out there, in our country violence is treated differently, even though it is really a form of porn at times. Thus, the Supreme Court (in a ruling not blatantly obvious really) treated violent video games sold to children different from if you sold them a Playboy. Such sexual puritanism leads to some problems such as teaching children sex education and other countries like France are more comfortable about children being familiar about sex and nudity. So, certain French films, for instance, might have at least partial nudity of teenagers. We do have some photography with revealing poses and the like here, but even that has a few times gotten people in trouble. We have teen sex flicks but the actors tend to be adults especially if there is anything acutely shown.
I am not aware of many Supreme Court cases that deal with use of children in sexually themed film. Surely, there are various films such as those with Brooke Shields that have them. The Supreme Court did protect virtual use of children in such materials. So, cartoon teenagers having sex in non-obscene ways will be allowed. Ditto simulations -- e.g., Romeo and Juliet having sex would involve a girl who is thirteen. Showing an eighteen year old there having simulated sex would be protected unless it violated the in my view arbitrarily vague obscenity laws in place.
But, use of actual minors can get you in trouble. Now, the basic concern here is child pornography, which involves children having sex in ways we basically would find abhorrent. It is child abuse and geared to a certain market of pedophiles. We can target the specific acts but it is often hard to stop that, especially if it is produced overseas. So, a state or the federal government will target possession of the resulting materials. Certain problems can arise regarding proof, excessive punishment and so forth. On a basic level, however, the material seems correctly illegal. See, basically, New York v. Ferber, which held that this need not only involve the stricter rules in place for adult obscenity.
That case involves "films are devoted almost exclusively to depicting young boys masturbating" and even the lawyer for Ferber appealed to overbreadth and alleged that if the prosecutors handled the case better that obscenity laws could have brought a conviction. And, that is what concerns me there -- the law includes "simulated" sex. Take Show Me Love, which is a foreign film about two teenage girls who fall in love. There is a quick scene where masturbation is simulated though it is hidden. Simulated sex is a broad category. So, basically Stevens concurred to say sure this stuff can be prosecuted, but was open to an as applied challenge for stuff that would not be appropriately targeted. This might be an okay policy for child related material.
A later case involved photography by a reputable artist -- "10 color photographs of his partially nude and physically mature 14-year-old stepdaughter, L.S., who at the time was attending modeling school." The law was later amended so only something with "lascivious intent" would be covered. This allowed the core speech question to be avoided though three liberal justices made clear that to them mere nudity, even of minors, is protected speech. Osborne v. Ohio cites a few photos of a male teen (maybe two) in sexual explicit positions, this time merely involving possession. The partial dissent (Osborne won a procedural point) would have protected mere possession here like in Stanley v. Georgia. The dissent, as in the past case, also was concerned about the law being overboard though again the law did not cover mere nudity.
Various cases over the years protected minors in matters involving sexual matters such as their access to contraceptives and abortion. Minors in various ways will be involved with sexual materials both as viewers and participants. The proper line drawing here is tricky given it is valid to treat children differently given their lack of maturity and the possibility of abuse including lack of consent. Nonetheless, an excessive policy here is not appropriate. And, other concerns, including privacy of the home, should be weighed in the balance.
Free speech is not absolute but exceptions should be treated carefully even when "taboos" are involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!