At 06:49 PM 7/31/2008, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wasn't that settled by Potter Stewart who said, "I can't define it but I
know it when I see it!!"
I don't think anyone with an "adult" level of cultural and
sociological sophistication (which, if you trust most of the opinions of
those who knew him well, did not include Stewart) would consider anything,
except an affirmation of Stewart's lack of familiarity with parts of the
culture that he, personally, did not inhabit, "settled" by that aphorism.
The aphorism is really Stewart being arrogant, in the most
unflattering semantic sense of the word, since it presupposes that there is
something absolute about smut, "pornography" (whatever THAT means), and/or
"obscenity," as the law defines it, when there has never been any evidence
that whether something "is" or "is not" one of those things is anything
other than entirely subjective, and Stewart is declaring that he knows what
it is. In fact, the legal definition of obscenity, as enacted by most of
the States, uses a "test" which asks the jury to find whether or not the
material on trial appeals, in the average John Q. Public, to a "prurient"
(which is usually defined as "shameful" or "morbid") interest in sex, among
other things. The problem is that the average person doesn't HAVE a
prurient interest to which ANYTHING can appeal, no matter how many tits or
pubic hairs the material describes or shows. The average person has a
normal and healthy interest in things sexual and erotic. I am, of course,
willing to make allowances for people on this list, however.
My point is that the deck is already stacked. Stewart doesn't know
jack shit about erotic material, in any absolute sense. Nobody does,
including a criminal petit jury, I submit, because there is nothing
absolute about it to know. It's all strictly subjective, and that makes the
obscenity laws (which falsely and erroneously presuppose that there is
something objectively appraisable about it) irrational and, therefore,
perverse themselves.
The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you,
if you like sexually explicit material, since your enjoyment of this stuff
reminds them of how terrified they are of it, and of their own respective
sexual natures, and/or the sexual natures of other adults. Reminding them
of how terrified they are means they are so pissed off at you that they
can't, and no longer want to, think straight. The obscenity laws, and
arrogant aphorisms, are merely products of those who are so terrified
and/or angry that they can't think straight. I mean, how ridiculous and
irrational do you have to be to see it as a priority of some kind to
control what all the adults in the whole world can and cannot see
privately, on their home computers?
...not many are aware it was a case of a certain piece of film (which was
shown in the supreme court chamber) ...Stewart further added, ""and the
motion picture involved in this case is not that.""
Too late! The damage was already done.
Bob
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.
OK
End
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
