In a post at the website howstuffworks.com, where she is an editor, Chanel Lee writes: "Although the Court focused on the obscenity portion of the case during oral arguments, the decision itself largely left that question alone, saying only that the California law is too vague and broadly drawn to pass the Miller test necessary to meet the obscenity standard. Then again, Associate Justice Antonin J. Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, seems to have had it up to here with those who want to define obscenity as anything they don’t like: 'The most basic principle — that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content — is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.' "You can read her entire post here.
No comments:
Post a Comment