Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Text This: Words Alone Can Violate Federal Obscenity Laws

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
carzen Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:07 PM
Original message
Text This: Words Alone Can Violate Federal Obscenity Laws
With so much attention focused on the Congressman Mark Foley sex scandal involving inappropriate text messages to congressional interns, it's worth noting that recent news reports and a federal appellate court decision confirm that federal obscenity prosecutions can be brought based on words alone, even when those words are unaccompanied by obscene visual images.

When most of us think of obscenity prosecutions, we assume that the matter concerns obscene photographs or films or videos. And, by and large, most obscenity prosecutions do involve visual images. But late last month The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article headlined "Woman charged over 'vile' Web stories," which reported that "A Donora woman who federal prosecutors say posted fictional stories online about the rape, torture and murder of children was indicted this week on six charges of distributing obscene materials over the Internet. Unlike typical obscenity cases, though, is charged with violating the law through simple writing, and not with pictures or movies."

Moreover, within the past week, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal criminal conviction based on a jury's finding that various offensive voicemail messages consisted of words that constituted spoken obscenities. The 11th Circuit's opinion reproduces the offending language in exacting detail, proving that what is criminally obscene when spoken as a voicemail message may not be criminally obscene when expressed in the context of an appellate court's discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence.

But while technology has not yet progressed to the point where a person can be prosecuted merely for thinking bad thoughts, there are some exceptions to the general rule that the First Amendment automatically protects the expression of thoughts in language. One of the best-known exceptions is the "true threat" exception, under which a person can be subject to criminal punishment for making a real threat to another's safety, notwithstanding the First Amendment.



http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1160125531949
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC