英语论文网

ng and old'. Private individuals and anti-obscenity leagues began to rail against the 'evils of smut'.

In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in the decision on Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, succeeded in defining ambiguity where he failed to define pornography any better than 'I know it when I see it.'.

The first complete legal definition of obscenity in the US appears courtesy of the Supreme Court in the decision of Miller v. California, (413 U.S. 15, 24, 1973). This definition sets the following three standards (direct quote): 1) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This definition (dubbed 'The Miller Test') would later be refuted by Kathleen Sullivan, dean of Stanford Law School, in the Sept. '92 issue of The New Republic: 'The first two parts of [the Miller test] are incoherent: to put it crudely, they require the audience to be turned on and grossed out at the same time.'

支持和反对-Arguments For and Against

In his article in the March, 2010 issue of 'The Scientist', Professor Milton Diamond reviews the collected studies of the correlations between the viewing of pornography and sexual attitudes. He states, 'in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. [. . .] Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995.' Milton also reveals a number of conclusions evident in these studies which defy popular belief: '[the studies] found that rapists were more likely than non-rapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated non-rapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. [a€|] Studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn't see those movies.' Milton also finds that, while 'No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women,' they have found that 'what does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing'. Milton concludes stating, 'Significantly, no community in the United States has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. The only feature of a community standard that holds is intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers.' In other words, while no group can agree on the exact standard by which to measure the good or evil of any other form of pornography, 'child-porn' is universally recognized as an absolute evil.

The 3/9/10 issue of Post-Bulletin reported that the state senate was reviewing a bill which would change travel policy for state employees and elected officials, limiting them from staying at hotels which offer certain types of pornography. It does not limit all pornography, on