DSpace Repository

Obscenity: An Outdated Concept for the Twenty-First Century

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Loewy, Arnold H.
dc.date.accessioned 2010-04-16T15:43:42Z
dc.date.available 2010-04-16T15:43:42Z
dc.date.issued 2005
dc.identifier.citation 10 NEXUS 21 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10601/601
dc.description.abstract In the pages that follow, this essay argues that the Court should take the opportunity to travel the path not taken in Miller v. California and hold that there is no such thing as obscenity. Instead, all speech is protected. To the extent that sexually explicit speech may sometimes cause harm because of its manner of dissemination, case law that has developed since Miller is more than adequate to deal with that harm. Consequently, whatever utility Miller once had in preventing social harms is no longer present. Further, Miller has long been antithetical to sound First Amendment theory. Therefore, it should be overruled. en_US
dc.publisher NEXUS
dc.relation.uri http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nex10&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=21
dc.relation.uri https://advance.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/4G7W-7XB0-00CT-T0D1-00000-00?context=1000516
dc.relation.uri https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/If25ac5e164f211db8a54a698991202fa/View/FullText.html
dc.subject Miller v. California en_US
dc.subject Obscenity en_US
dc.subject Free speech en_US
dc.subject First Amendment en_US
dc.title Obscenity: An Outdated Concept for the Twenty-First Century en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record