Internet Legal Issues (Management 447) Professor Charles H. Smith Obscenity (Chapter 10) Spring 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) The Free Speech Coalition Tramitação processual 1) United States District Court 2) Ninth Circuit 3)
Advertisements

FCC – Part 4 Law and Policy. Telephone Conversations Station must notify the outside party of its intention to air the conversation before broadcast.
Obscenity Obscenity Defamation Defamation Hate Speech Hate Speech Boundaries of Free Speech.
Obscenity – is anything that treats sex or nudity in an offensive or lewd manner, violates recognized standards of decency, and lacks serious literary,
(c) 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 First Amendment: Freedom of Expression Are obscenity laws a violation of free.
CIPA Update. FOR SCHOOLS – By July 1, 2012, amend your existing Internet safety policy (if you have not already done so) to provide for the education.
© 2007 by West Legal Studies in Business / A Division of Thomson Learning CHAPTER 4 Constitutional Authority to Regulate Business.
Miller vs. California By tyler bundies. What freedom was uestioned? Is obscenity protected by the first amendment? Does the first amendment give you the.
Freedom of Speech. Purpose for Freedom of Speech: To guarantee to each person a right of Free expression, in the Spoken and the Written word, and by all.
Obscenity. Obscenity: An overview We know it is not protected, but… The problem comes in defining obscenity. What is it? Where is it found? Who should.
1:6 Speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.
Group Community: A World Without Borders Kimberly Carter David Dobin Tim Hammond Chris Rushing.
Regulating speech How the Net changes attitudes and assumptions, and creates new societal tensions 1 and unintended consequences March 10, 2011Harvard.
Workplace Monitoring Store & review messages (keyword search): 46.5% Store & review computer files (keyword search): 36.1% Monitor Internet connections:
Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace 1. The U.S. Constitution - The 1 st Amendment: The 1 st Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment.
Obscenity and Indecency. Controlling / Regulating obscenity, pornography, indecency FCC regulations of broadcast Local, state, and federal governments’
Chapter 5 Freedom of Expression
Obscenity is not protected by the 1 st amendment.
Brandon Hall CSC 540.  The US Government first attempted to filter the Internet in the early 90’s.  This was an attempt to protect minors against the.
SPEECH & CONTENT REGULATION IN CYBERSPACE: Ashcroft v. ACLU Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition American Library Association, Inc. v. US BY ERIC IAN SHANK.
CIVIL LIBERTIES. THE POLITICS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES Civil liberties: protections the Constitution provides individuals against the abuse of government power.
Civil Liberties. The Politics of Civil Liberties Civil liberties: protections the Constitution provides against the abuse of government power State ratifying.
Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace
Terri Bassett and Susan Stilwell CT Can Censorship be Reconciled with the Bill of Rights? The Children’s Internet Protection Act: Legal and.
Bootcamp 2009 Porn, Predators, and the Pressure to Police Jennifer Stisa Granick, Civil Liberties Director.
Ch3 Freedom of Speech The US Constitution.
ITIS 1210 Introduction to Web-Based Information Systems Chapter 52 Parental Controls on the Internet.
Complying with CIPA: What Libraries Need to Know Bob Bocher Technology Consultant Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction State Division for Libraries,
Ethics in Information Technology, Second Edition Chapter 5 Freedom of Expression.
Understanding CIPA to Fight the Filter Mark E. Moran CEO, Dulcinea Media.
American Censorship & School Libraries Presented by Bill Lukenbill, Ph.D. Professor, School of Information, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas,
LIBS100 July 20, 2005 First Amendment Library Bill of Rights.
Chapter 18 Obscenity & Pornography. Pornography Protected by First Amendment Unless child pornography-not protected PgP BUSA331 Chapter 182.
Early Definitions of Obscenity Roth v. United States (1957) - Does the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find the dominant theme.
Cybersex, Porn, and Filtering Information Technology and Social Life April 18, 2005.
Freedom of Speech. 1 st Amendment The essential, core purpose of the 1 st Amendment is self-governance. It enables people to obtain information from.
Summary of Part V Freedom of Expression Constitutional Law Mr. Morrison Spring 2006.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1963) By: Carmen Vaca.
Freedom of Speech and Press. The Big Idea While the 1st and 14th Amendments gives Americans the right to express ideas freely, the Constitution and the.
Freedom of Speech  Seems like a dumb question, but why is it so important to a democratic government?  Ability to debate actions and policies of elected.
CptS 401 Adam Carter. Quiz Question 7 Obscene speech is protected by the First Amendment. A. True B. False 2.
How is Democracy Socially Constructed? Is it Through Conflict We Find Social Reality? Presented by: Chelsea Jonson Spring
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase Chapter 3: Freedom of Speech.
Chapter Five Civil Liberties. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.5 | 2 The Politics of Civil Liberties Civil liberties: protections.
Constitutional Review The truth your founding fathers never told you!
Miller Cross 4 th Ed. © 2005 by West Legal Studies in Business / A Division of Thomson Learning Chapter 5 Constitutional Authority To Regulate Business.
What is Obscenity?. What is your Definition? Are These Obscene?
Chapter Five Civil Liberties. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.5 | 2 The Politics of Civil Liberties Civil liberties: protections.
Freedom of Speech and Press 1 st Amendment Forms of (Speech) Expression Spoken Written Symbolic.
1 st Amendment /Speech What are some limits on speech? What are some types/examples of speech that can be punished/made illegal?
iRAT 2iRAT 2  3. Traditional religious ethical systems have tended to be quite _____.  legalistic.
1. Vagueness and Overbreadth: Laws governing free speech must be clear and specific. > Laws that unnecessarily prohibit too much expression are considered.
LIBS100 March 23, 2005 First Amendment Library Bill of Rights.
Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 17: Internet IV (Content Regulation) Copyright © 2007.
Group Three: Lyli, Jerica, Jen, & Chris. → Petitioners: Two Atlanta, Georgia movie theaters. ― Those involved: The movie theaters owners and managers.
OBSCENITY AND THE LAW CHAPTER 10 Communications Law.
Chapter 5 Constitutional Authority To Regulate Business.
Civil Liberties.
The Law of Journalism & Mass Communication
What is Obscenity?.
Civil Liberties.
What is Obscenity?.
Media Regulation October 19, 2017.
Boundaries of Free Expression III (Obscenity II and Violence/Cruelty)
Limits to the Freedom of Speech
A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase
Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace
The First Amendment and the Internet
A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase
Presentation transcript:

Internet Legal Issues (Management 447) Professor Charles H. Smith Obscenity (Chapter 10) Spring 2006

What is Obscenity? Miller v. California (pp ), while recognizing that 1 st Amendment free speech rights do not protect obscenity, promulgated the following three-part test: –Prurient interest and contemporary community standards – whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. –Patently offensive – whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law. –Lacks serious value – whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

“Prurient Interest” and “Contemporary Community Standards” Prurient interest – “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters” (Model Penal Code § (2) (Tent. Draft No. 6, 1957). Contemporary community standards – which community’s standards are appropriate in the online context? Case study – United States v. Thomas (pp ).

“Patently Offensive” According to Miller, this includes “hard-core ‘ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated’ that include ‘masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.’” This element is subject to the “contemporary community standards” standard.

“Lacks Serious... Value” Case study – Pope v. Illinois (page 318), which held that the “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” element depended on whether a “reasonable person” would find such value in the material, taken as a whole.

Comments re Miller Test All three elements can be very subjective even though they purport to create an objective standard for obscenity. This subjectivity detracts from the predictability and stability inherent in the American common law system. Also, special problems re Internet publications since little or no control over who may view the allegedly obscene material, though access to website can be limited by use of “v” chip, credit card, access code, etc.

“Consenting Adults” Defense Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (page 319) held no such defense for watching pornographic movie in theatre open to the public. However, other cases hold that this defense applies to activity within home; case studies – Stanley v. Georgia (page 319) (defendant had pornographic films stored in bedroom) and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Texas antisodomy law invalidated re sex acts at home); note that both cases arose out of lawful police searches. Defense available if viewing pornography on home computer? Probably yes, except for child pornography, which is illegal whether in or out of home setting; case study – Osborne v. Ohio (pp ).

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 223) First attempt by Congress to protect minors from pornography; barred knowingly transporting obscene material through interstate/foreign commerce or through interactive computer service. Case studies – Reno v. ACLU (page 321 and handout) and U.S. v. Playboy (pp ), both of which held certain provisions of CDA unconstitutional.

Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2256) Prohibits use of computer technology to knowingly produce child pornography using real and “virtual” children. Case study – Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (page 325 and handout) held that: –§ 2256(8)(B) is overbroad in that it covers materials beyond the categories recognized in the Ferber and Miller cases – (1) it extends to images that are not obscene per Miller’s three-part standard, and (2) no crime recorded and no victim created by production of “virtual” children and Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. –Lawful speech cannot be limited because it may be used to commit a crime; e.g., an adult’s use of images permitted by § 2256(8)(B) to seduce children. –§ 2256(8)(D) is also overbroad since it requires the jury to assess the material in light of how it is promoted but this assessment would depend on the material’s content.

Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (47 U.S.C. § 231) Narrowed CPPA provisions to include online transmissions by service providers and e-commerce site providers; see five-point “rationale” for COPA on page 326. Case study – Ashcroft v. ACLU (pp and handout); please note that correct case citation is 535 U.S. 564 (2002).

Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 (47 U.S.C. § 254) Case study – United States v. American Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (issue was validity of CIPA provision withholding federal assistance to library for internet access unless library installed software to filter pornographic computer images). Court ruled this withholding of funds was valid because “(1) Internet access in public libraries was neither a ‘traditional’ nor a ‘designated’ public forum; (2) forum analysis and heightened judicial scrutiny were incompatible with public libraries’ broad discretion to consider content in making collection decisions; (3) any concerns over filtering software's alleged tendency to erroneously ‘overblock’ access to constitutionally protected speech were dispelled by the ease with which library patrons could have the filtering software disabled; (4) because public libraries had traditionally excluded pornographic material from their collections, Congress could reasonably impose a parallel limitation on its Internet assistance programs; (5) public libraries’ use of Internet filtering software did not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights; and (6) consequently, CIPA (a) was a valid exercise of Congress' spending power, and (b) did not impose an unconstitutional condition on public libraries that received federal assistance for Internet access” (case summary on lexis- nexis.com).

Employee Access to Online Pornography Many employees abuse internet access (e.g., by viewing online pornography during business hours) resulting in decreased productivity. Employee’s viewing online pornography could be basis of sexual harassment case by co-worker (hostile work environment), resulting in employer’s exposure to liability and employee’s loss of job. However, could there be any situation where an employee would have valid reason to view online pornography? Can an employer totally prohibit employee’s viewing online pornography? Case study – Urosky v. Gilmore (pp ).