Free speech nowadays means free publication of pretty much anything. It was not only so. The legal complications of the Lady Chatterley's Lover case are instructive.
[Lawyer] Rembar mulled over a question that [Justice] Brennan apparently hadn’t considered: What if a book met the standards of obscenity yet also presented ideas of “redeeming social importance”? By Brennan’s logic, wouldn’t it qualify for the First Amendment’s protection after all?
On a sheet of paper, Rembar drew two slightly overlapping circles. He labeled one circle “Material appealing to prurient interests.” He labeled the other “Material utterly without social importance.” By Brennan’s reasoning, only material that fell inside both circles — that was both prurient and worthless — should be denied the privileges of free speech. More...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment