One recurring problem -- some say recurring nightmare -- for the Supreme Court has been dealing with sexually explicit expression. The Court has generally (rightly or wrongly) reached the following conclusions:
A. | *Obscenity*, defined as speech that |
- | describes or depicts (in words or pictures) sexual conduct in a manner that is patently offensive under contemporary community standards, |
- | appeals to the prurient interest, *and* |
- | taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, scientific, artistic, or political value, is constitutionally UNPROTECTED. You can go to jail for distributing it (though not for possessing it). This category is fairly narrow, and excludes virtually all mere nudity, and most things that have any reasonable pretention to serious art. |
B. | *Child pornography*, defined as speech that |
- | visually depicts |
- | sexual conduct -- which might include sex, masturbation, and "lewd exhibition of genitals" -- |
- | by actual children under the age of 18, is constitutionally UNPROTECTED. You can go to jail for distributing it *or* for possessing it. |
More on this in the next message.
authors:
Larry Lessig | David Post | Eugene Volokh |
Copyright © 1999 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved