"Obscene pornography"

[Dave Wilton]

Santorum actually chose his words very carefully and correctly here (for
once).

"Pornography" is an irrelevant term in a legal context; the operative legal
concept is "obscenity." "Obscenity" is not protected by the first amendment.
So he is quite correct in his use of the term, and the headline writer has
accurately and concisely summarized Santorum's position.

Of course, exactly what constitutes the difference between obscene and
non-obscene pornography is a bigger and ultimately unanswerable question.


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Joel S. Berson
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 2:32 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: "Obscene pornography"

The headline to an item by Chris Moody on "The Ticket" is

"Santorum renews promise to root out obscene pornography."

I suppose that is the "pervasive" kind, the kind one would be
interested in.  The text of the item is modestly better:

" Rick Santorum doubled down Sunday on
<http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornogr
aphy-222833811.html>a
campaign promise to crack down on the distribution of explicit
pornography if elected president, saying exposure to the content "can
be very damaging." "

I'm not interested in implicit pornography, although it might have
confused Potter Stewart.

Joel

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

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