"The line between protected pornography and unprotected obscenity lies between appealing to a good healthy interest in sex and appealing to a depraved interest, whatever that means."I'm forced to wonder, is an interest in pornography a good healthy interest in sex? I would argue that it is not. I'm not sure what constitutes a "healthy" interest in sex, and when that healthy interest is good or bad...I'm not even sure what a bad healthy interest would look like.
The clear confusion on this topic goes to a larger point: the Supreme Court, for all its good intentions, needs to engage in a massive reexamination of the first amendment doctrine. In that same article, Scalia admitted that the Court has not done a good job of defining obscenity. I think the court hasn't done a good job in defining a lot of first amendment issues...making the dialogue surrounding the subject matter unfocused.
For example, the so-called "establishment clause" has been construed to mean "separation of church and state." However, when you read the constitution and its amendments, nothing about separation is ever mentioned. When making an attempt to read the most literal of meanings, really, it would appear the whole point is that Congress can't make a national religion, much like France and England had at the time our nation was formed. Our society has gone too far, trying to require that government employees appear divorced from their values at work.
That is the theory. In practice, I have two wonderful examples of how the secularists fail. Here in Lubbock, County Court Judge, Judge Head, has many books in his office about faith. These include several copies of daily devotionals. He even has a pillow with a quote from the Book of Isaiah about following where God leads you. Also, while working at the DA's office, being a very talkative person, I've made friends with one of the secretaries, Linda. She is a Christian, and we have had many open discussions, especially in the wake of all these hurricanes, about the power of God in our daily lives. She loves the song, "In Christ Alone" (quoted in one of my May entries), and I'm taking her a CD full of Christian music on Monday. Government employees or not, these people carry their values with them as they work.
Coming back to my original point, it would appear the Supreme Court has a lot to learn about the first amendment. Perhaps our Justices should "slum" a little, and work in a grass roots area to see how it works in the "real" world, outside the marbled walls of the court. Then, perhaps, we wouldn't have "healthy sex interests" and "pornography" tied together.
Posts
2 comments:
I love you blog. It’s cool and challenging at the same time.
On healthy interest in sex vs. pornography I think the two are worlds. I do understand that sometimes people are attracted to things that they really find offensive, yet it’s availability causes a problem for the person. If porn wasn’t readily available I’m sure far less people would have felt a need for it. In South Africa laws on porn is far stricter that what I understand it is in the US and most people have never seen anything worse that R rated movies and even that is not generally accepted.
I agree with the idea that sometimes mere availability spurs interest. However, just because someone is interested doesn't make that interest healthy. I think healthy is something that is not destructive and is moral. (The definition of moral is a whole other topic.)
As far as different "worlds" when dealing with sex issues, I agree. The U.S. is sex saturated. Sex topics are taboo in many countries. That said, I do not think that interest in sex, healthy or otherwise, is lesser at all in these other countries. Adultry, pornography, all of it is a rampant issue everywhere. Some places just do not have it plastered in their national media.
Post a Comment