How to properly and legally GHS

The First Amendment to the Constitution states that the Diet "shall not legislate ... deprivation and derogation of the right to freedom of expression".

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that books and films that the court finds to be pornographic and obscene are not protected by the First Amendment. This requires the court to review each film to determine whether the sexual activity depicted in the film is pornographic or obscene or whether the film has enough literary value that it outweighs its harmfulness.

This review process has made the courts a censorship body for books, newspapers and films that examines the morality and tastes of individuals.

There can never be an objective standard for pornographic materials.

Whether it's yellow or not depends on how the viewer thinks about it.

Or as Justice Douglas once sarcastically did

"It depends on the reaction between the two thighs of the viewer."

To this one person it may be pornography and obscenity, to another it may be art, and to others it may be nonsense.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Porter Stewart once wrote in a judgment: "Today, I do not attempt to further define this kind of object (a hardcore work) as I understand it in a few strokes, and I have never succeeded in defining it in plain language, but! When I saw it, I knew it was it! ”

But other judges who claimed to know how to tell the difference had their own opinions.

Each judge has a personal opinion on the definition of a profanity, which is rarely included in a formal court decision.

Justice Byron White's clerks said their superiors relied on the degree to which a film was portrayed in the film when deciding whether it was filthy.

They call these "BQ angles" rules. Justice Brennan's clerks refer to his standard as the "soft guy" rule, which is that as long as it's not completely **, it doesn't count.

Chief Justice Earl Warren had previously argued that depictions of "normal" sexual activity, no matter how explicit, were protected by the Constitution, but even the slightest hint at "abnormal" sexual activity would have made him angry.

"Will my daughter feel hurt" is his personal criterion.

Justice Hugo Black argued that dirty movies should absolutely be protected by the First Amendment, but obscenity, such as "the conscription of the CNM," was not.

Justice John Paul Stevenson, on the other hand, held that dirty swear deserves more protection than dirty movies.

Each justice has his own standards, and their interpretation of constitutional principles and case law is more or less reflective of personal tastes, the constraints of the frame or framework of the mind, and the influence of the individual's different backgrounds.

Although the views of the justices above are listed, many of them are completely contrary, but in practice.

The minimum for determining whether a material is pornographic is that it is prohibited if five of the nine justices of the Supreme Court believe that it falls into this category.

"This pragmatic approach, which seems flexible and simple, even has its natural roots in the common law system's emphasis on individual jurisprudence, actually disparages the Supreme Court's status as the protector of the First Amendment."

"In 1933, in the case of United States v. Ulysses, the right to identify pornography was delegated to a lower court. And adhering to a very strict judicial judgment: "Obscenity refers to an attempt to be extremely impulsive or party to sexual impurity ......"

This outdated tone is of course to be beaten, and Judge Woolsey held that "whether or not a book arouses impulses and desires must be judged by the court on the basis of its effect on an ordinary man with an X instinct - what the French call 'the common man's lust,' and not by taking it for granted." ”

Ruthberg frowned at the point, but she continued, "This kind of behavior has the right to put personal interests above the power of the state. It fails to give specific guidance to film studios, actors, and others who work in this category, and whose work lies somewhere between protected speech and impermissible pornography, keeps them in a precarious position. ”

"At the same time, considering that the average age of the nine justices is 62 years old. You must know that the judgment of sexual objects requires wisdom and physiology, and the ability indicated by some physiological indicators of the justices is obviously in a declining channel, and it is still working, but if in 20 years, the average age of the justices becomes 82 years old (here, I sincerely wish them all to live healthier and healthier so that they can continue to make great contributions to the legal cause of our country), will the standard for pornography be lowered again? To be honest, an 80-year-old man doesn't react to anything he sees, right? ”

"God, what did you write?" Rustic, Roseberg pinched the brownish-red hair that had slipped down her cheeks and put it on her ears......

Someone slumped on the hospitality couch in the office, looking at this beautiful scene with squinting eyes, but his tone was boring: "I...... I'm a student who aspires to become a constitutional expert, but you asked me to collect this thing...... Well, I know these are the essence of the mind of the justices...... But honestly, I'm not interested......"