Comments on: Bechdel & Thompson on Trial

By: dcnahm

dcnahm — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:09:31 +0000

Oh, I wasn’t trying to say you were wrong or correct you–I was trying to make you feel somewhat better about the situation. There is a pretty high (or is it low) standard that the state has to meet. But, it doesn’t much matter what the Supreme Court says–if the library removes the books, they are still gone–if only for a time. The issue would have to be litigated and that takes time and money and who knows how it would end up coming out in state court, then on appeal…

Now, I’ve made myself feel worse…

By: ed

ed — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:53:15 +0000

Thanks very much for the clarification.

By: dcnahm

dcnahm — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:49:59 +0000

Well, the legal definition and the dictionary definition of pornography are different. Under the law, pornography is not necessarily obscene, and it is only obscenity that gets less first amendment protection. The test to determine if something is obscene comes from Miller v. California and is:

1) the average person, applying the standard of their community, has to find that the work on a whole appeals to prurient interests;
2) the work depicts in an offensive way sexual conduct specifically described by state law; and
3) the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

So after all that–if a work can still be pornographic but not obscene and get full first amendment protection. I think.

So, yes, it is annoying, but it is unlikely that any court would find that Fun Home or Blankets are obscene.

By: BookBlog

BookBlog — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:17:14 +0000

Book Banning, Again…

Typical. I wrote a post the other day dissing Banned Books Week, and then Edward Champion finds this article on……