New meanings for pornography?

[Dave Wilton]

"Pornography" is not illegal, at least it hasn't in the US for many decades
(1973, Miller v. California). What is illegal is "obscenity." Pornography,
except that which is deemed obscene, is protected by the first amendment,
obscene material is not.

Miller established a three-pronged test for obscenity:
1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, and
2) The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, as measured by
contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable law, and
3) A reasonable person would find the work, taken as whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

This leaves pretty wide latitude for the determination of "community
standards." But obscenity cases are notoriously difficult for the government
to win. While I'm sure it has won some cases, I can't think of any of the
top of my head. So if the porn producer is willing to put up a fight, just
about anything goes. Wilson's "erect penis" rule may be a good guide for the
difference between hardcore and softcore pornography, but it's not part of
any legal standard.

There is also a legal standard for "indecency." "Indecent" material may not
be broadcast on the public airwaves (but it's okay in writing, movies, cable
TV, etc.). FCC v. Pacifica (1978) defined "indecency" as "language or
material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive
as measured by contemporary standards in the broadcast medium, sexual or
excretory activities or organs."

--Dave Wilton
  dave at wilton.net

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Wilson Gray
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:11 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: New meanings for pornography?

Somewhere or other, somewhen or other, I read that pornography is
defined as soft-core, regardless of the amouunt of split beaver,
unless an erect penis is visible in the picture or in the movie. The
point of the article was that there is a way to permit the
publication, distribution, and sale of legitimate nudist material,
while preventing the publication, distribution, and sale of real,
plain-brown-wrapper, hard-core pornography.

-Wilson

On 10/29/06, David Bergdahl <dlbrgdhl at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       David Bergdahl <dlbrgdhl at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: New meanings for pornography?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> Charles & Ron have it exactly right: "R-rated" material is not considered
> pornographic, only "XXX" material.
> -db
>
> On 10/29/06, RonButters at aol.com <RonButters at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       RonButters at AOL.COM
> >
> > Subject:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20[ADS-L]=20New=20meanings=2
> >               0?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?for=20pornography=3F?=
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >
> > I think that Charlie Doyle is right in his post when he says that
> > pornograph=
> > y=20
> > implies illegality for many people. And it is also the case that not
> > every=20
> > attempt at sexual titilation is pornography, and what constitutes
> > prurience=20=
> > is a=20
> > matter of taste. I suspect that what this young woman meant was that
> > her=20
> > costume was not beyond acceptable levels of sexual titilationosity, and
> > that=
> > she=20
> > would not expect normal people to find it prurient. There are, for
> > instance,=
> > an=20
> > enormous number of print advertisements for normal products such as=20
> > undergarments, perfumes, and colognes that are quite erotic but most
> > people,=
> > I think,=20
> > would not call them pornographic.
> >
> > I have not done a survey, but I suspect that a very large percentage of
> > the=20
> > American public today--maybe a majority (depending on the ages of the=20
> > interviewees) would not consider anything pornography that did not
involve
> > a=
> > t least=20
> > naked below-the-belt genitals and/or simulated or actual sexual
> > intercourse=20=
> > of=20
> > one sort or another. Soft-core pornography generally involves simulated
> > sex.
> >
> > I'd call PLAYBOY risqu=E9, but not pornographic (as I remember it).
> >
> > In a message dated 10/27/06 9:00:08 AM, db.list at PMPKN.NET writes:
> >
> > >=20
> > > =A0=A0 "'It's not like it's pornography,' said Pamela Runsick, 22,
> > > =A0 =A0 a senior from Melbourne majoring in advertising and public
> > > =A0 =A0 relations, who stripped down to a black lace bra, panties
> > > =A0 =A0 and high heels for a test shoot. 'It's Playboy. It's
> > > =A0 =A0 glamorous.'"
> > >=20
> > > Since any definition of "pornography" i've ever run across before
seems
> > > to have, at core, the purpose of some sort of sexual titillation or
> > > prurience involved, it seems to me that Playboy counts.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>


--
Everybody says, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange
complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
Whoever has lived long enough to find out what life is knows how deep
a debt of gratitude we owe to Adam, the first great benefactor of our
race. He brought death into the world.

--Sam Clemens

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org