Law Of Obscenity Research Articles

Social Science versus Jurisprudence in "Wagner": The Study of Pornography, Harm, and the Law of Obscenity in Canada

Social Science versus Jurisprudence in "Wagner": The Study of Pornography, Harm, and the Law of Obscenity in Canada

Feminism, Pornography, and Law

Since Roth v. United States,' the Supreme Court has maintained that is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press.2 This means that, consistent with the usual procedural constraints,3 state and federal governments can regulate obscene books, photographs, and movies.4 At the same time, the Court has developed a restrictive definition of obscenity that, in effect, limits obscenity regulation to hardcore pornography.6 First amendment theorists have widely criticized obscenity law. Their arguments tend to focus on the problem of defining obscenity, and some criticize any attempt to define or regulate obscenity.7 The theorists' legal arguments are informed by their perceptions of pornography and its social significance; these perceptions may be broadly categorized as either conservative or liberal.8 The Court's current position represents a compromise between the conservative and liberal positions, a position that satisfies neither side.' Recently, a new voice entered the obscenity law debate. Feminists have begun to articulate their opposition to pornography,'0 to organize t B.S. 1973, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ph.D. 1978, J.D. 1984, University of Pennsylvania. The author wrote this Comment while a student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1 354 U.S. 476 (1957). 2 Id. at 481. 3 See F. SCHAUER, THE LAW OF OBSCENITY 206-27 (1976). 4 Most states regulate obscenity. For a categorization of obscenity statutes, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 755 n.7 (1982). Federal regulation in the area includes provisions regulating the use of the mails, see 18 U.S.C. ? 1461 (1982); 39 U.S.C. ?? 3001, 3008, 3010 (1982), common carriers, see 18 U.S.C. ? 1462 (1982), interstate transportation, see 18 U.S.C. ? 1465 (1982), and importation into the United States, see 18 U.S.C. ? 1462 (1982); 19 U.S.C. ? 1305 (1982). For a discussion of the history of federal obscenity regulation and a description of current federal law in the area, see F. SCHAUER, supra note 3, at 169-91. 5 See infra notes 32-36 and accompanying text. 6 See infra notes 66-71 and accompanying text (discussing views of liberal theorists). 7 See infra notes 40-44 and accompanying text. 8 See infra notes 45-59 and accompanying text. ' See infra notes 60-64 and accompanying text. 10 See, e.g., A. DWORKIN, PORNOGRAPHY: MEN POSSESSING WOMEN (1981); S. GRIFFIN, PORNOGRAPHY AND SILENCE (1981); TAKE BACK THE NIGHT: WOMEN ON PORNOGRAPHY (L. Lederer ed. 1980).

The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesThe Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A ReconsiderationStuart H. Teger, and Douglas KosinskiStuart H. Teger Search for more articles by this author , and Douglas Kosinski Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 42, Number 3Aug., 1980 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2130555 Views: 42Total views on this site Citations: 29Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1980 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Maxwell Mak, Andrew H. Sidman, Vincent Palmeri, Nico Denise, Ruben Huertero Judges’ Race and the Voting Rights Act: Perceived Expertise in Three-Judge District Court Panels, Justice System Journal 42, no.3-43-4 (Feb 2021): 375–393.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881666Raymond V. Carman The Impact of the Judicial Role Orientation, (Mar 2017): 105–132.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53381-0_5Douglas Rice The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda, Law & Society Review 48, no.11 (Jan 2014): 63–90.https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12056Yen-Tu Su, Han-wei Ho Judging, Sooner or Later: A Study of Decision Timing in Taiwan's Constitutional Court, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2014).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2467934Maxwell Mak, Andrew H. Sidman, Udi Sommer Is Certiorari Contingent on Litigant Behavior? Petitioners' Role in Strategic Auditing, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10, no.11 (Jan 2013): 54–75.https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12002Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, Christopher J. Zorn Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2109497Udi Sommer How rational are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States? Doctrinal considerations during agenda setting, Rationality and Society 23, no.44 (Nov 2011): 452–477.https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463111425014Udi Sommer Beyond Defensive Denials: Evidence from the Blackmun Files of a Broader Scope of Strategic Certiorari, Justice System Journal 31, no.33 (Dec 2013): 316–341.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767973Robert J. Hume Administrative Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court: The Importance of Legal Signals, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, no.33 (Nov 2007): 625–649.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00101.xRorie Spill Solberg, Leonard Ray Capacity, Attitudes, and Case Attributes: The Differential Success of the States before the United States Courts of Appeals, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5, no.22 (Aug 2016): 147–167.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000500500203James Brent A Principal-Agent Analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals Responses to Boerne V. Flores, American Politics Research 31, no.55 (Jul 2016): 557–570.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X032551700Sara C. Benesh, Saul Brenner, Harold J. Spaeth Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices, American Politics Research 30, no.33 (Jul 2016): 219–234.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030003001Eric Heberlig, Rorie Spill CONGRESS AT COURT: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICUS CURIAE, Southeastern Political Review 28, no.22 (Nov 2008): 189–212.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2000.tb00573.xCharles M. Cameron, Jeffrey A. Segal, Donald Songer Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions, American Political Science Review 94, no.11 (Aug 2014): 101–116.https://doi.org/10.2307/2586383Reginald S. Sheehan SOLICITOR GENERAL, PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT, AND THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING, Southeastern Political Review 24, no.11 (Nov 2008): 55–75.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1996.tb00432.xCook Beverly B. A Critique of the Supreme Court’s 1982 Agenda: Alternatives to the NYU Legal Model, Justice System Journal 17, no.22 (Sep 2014): 135–151.https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1994.10871199Kevin T. McGuire, Gregory A. Caldeira Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 87, no.33 (Sep 2013): 717–726.https://doi.org/10.2307/2938746Pablo T. Spiller Agency discretion under judicial review, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16, no.8-98-9 (Aug 1992): 185–200.https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(92)90095-3Reginald S. Sheehan Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties: a Reassessment of a Trend in Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Western Political Quarterly 45, no.11 (Sep 2016): 27–39.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500104David W. Neubauer Winners and losers: Dispositions of criminal appeals before the Louisiana supreme court, Justice Quarterly 8, no.11 (Mar 1991): 85–105.https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100090921Jeffrey A. Segal Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: the Effect of Presidential Appointments, Western Political Quarterly 43, no.11 (Sep 2016): 137–152.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300110Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 82, no.44 (Sep 2013): 1109–1127.https://doi.org/10.2307/1961752Jeffrey A. Segal, Cheryl D. Reedy The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: the Role of the Solicitor General, Western Political Quarterly 41, no.33 (Sep 2016): 553–568.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100309 S. Sidney Ulmer Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court: 1903-1968 Terms, The Journal of Politics 47, no.33 (Oct 2015): 899–909.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131216W. A. Taggart, M. R. Dezee A Note On Substantive Access Doctrines in the U.S. Supreme Court: a Comparative Analysis of the Warren and Burger Courts, Political Research Quarterly 38, no.11 (Mar 1985): 84–93.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298503800107S. Sidney Ulmer The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable, American Political Science Review 78, no.44 (Aug 2014): 901–911.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955797 S. Sidney Ulmer Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review, The Journal of Politics 45, no.22 (Oct 2015): 474–478.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130135James L. Gibson From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior, Political Behavior 5, no.11 (Jan 1983): 7–49.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985C. Neal Tate The methodology of judicial behavior research: A review and critique, Political Behavior 5, no.11 (Jan 1983): 51–82.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989986

Obscenity

The project staff ofthe Prohibited and Regulated Conduct Project of the Law Reform Commission of Canada state that the uncertainty of the law of obscenity the unevenness of its interpretation and application throughout Canada, and the question of its relevanceasa constituent partofthe criminal law prompted this extensive considerationofwhether the existing law is in need of reform. In his introduction, Professor Fox elaborates on the two fundamental difficulties at the rootofthe problem: first, that obscenity is an inescapably subjective phenomenon; and second, the law's own indeterminacyofaim. He then scrutinizes the plethora of possible subjectmatterfor obscenity and its dissemination; and he proceeds to a consideration of whether the suspectmaterialis obsceneper seorvariable according to susceptibility of the audience. Six possible justifications are offered for legislative prohibitions on obscenity; eachofthese areveryclosely examined and most are found to be tenuous at best. After a rather detailed examination of the cases on the Criminal Code provisions, other Federal legislation touching on the subject of obscenity, and the necessaril11 incidental consideration of defenses and expert witnesses, Professor Fox weighs the possible alternatives to the present law. There cannot, of course, be any definitive answers.

Constitutional Law. First Amendment: The New Metaphysics of the Law of Obscenity

Constitutional Law. First Amendment: The New Metaphysics of the Law of Obscenity

The Metaphysics of the Law of Obscenity

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Metaphysics of the Law of ObscenityHarry Kalven, Jr.Harry Kalven, Jr. Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Supreme Court Review Volume 19601960 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/scr.1960.3108685 Views: 34Total views on this site Citations: 5Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1960 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: References, (Sep 2012): 545–585.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118301074.refsBernadette H. Schell, Brian Bigelow Expert testimony in pornography trials: A role for the social scientist, Behavioral Sciences & the Law 8, no.33 (Jan 1990): 301–311.https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370080311Kevin T. McGuire Obscenity, Libertarian Values, and Decision Making in the Supreme Court, American Politics Quarterly 18, no.11 (Nov 2016): 47–67.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9001800103Walter Hellerstein Constitutional Limitations on State Tax Exportation, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 7, no.11 (Nov 2018): 3–77.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1982.tb00450.xHarrell R. Rodgers Censorship Campaigns in Eighteen Cities, American Politics Quarterly 2, no.44 (Nov 2016): 371–392.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X7400200401

Obscenity and the Law. Norman St. John-Stevas

Previous articleNext article No AccessReview ArticleObscenity and the Law. Norman St. John-Stevas Harry Kalven, Jr.Harry Kalven, Jr. Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Library Quarterly Volume 27, Number 3Jul., 1957 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/618435 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1957 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: Harry Kalven, Jr. The Metaphysics of the Law of Obscenity, The Supreme Court Review 1960 (Sep 2015): 1–45.https://doi.org/10.1086/scr.1960.3108685

The Law of Obscenity

Previous articleNext article No AccessNotes and CommentsThe Law of ObscenityPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Social Service Review Volume 11, Number 1Mar., 1937 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/631973 Copyright 1937 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Non-Mailable Matter; The Law of Lotteries, Frauds, and Obscenity in the Mails

Non-Mailable Matter; The Law of Lotteries, Frauds, and Obscenity in the Mails