Is Making Obscenity Illegal Constitutional?
The Supreme Court turned down the case Acosta v. Texas without comment. The case is about the sale of sexual obscene devices. The accused defense is the right to privacy the Supreme Court created in the 1960’s. The states case is that the item is “so offensive on its face as to affront current community standards of decency“ and “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.”
The right to privacy is a joke that in my opinion is used to obscure the right to do with your own property what you see fit. The closest the U.S. Constitution comes to it is in the Forth Amendment when the government is forbidden to make an unreasonable search of your property and thus breaching your ability to hide/conceal your own property.
The accused could argue that the item is his and he can do whatever he wants with it provided it is not harmful to himself or others even if people find such action offensive.
That argument should not work since debaucherious behavior is considered a breach of the natural right to liberty of what the law of the U.S. government is base according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
That of course leaves the normal way of changing laws which is to get legislation changed. If the people chose to tolerate a breech of natural law then that is their choice.
Source 1 is the article about Acosta v. Texas
Source 2 is Texas Penal Code Section 43.21
Source 3 is Chapter II of John Locke’s “Second Treatise On Civil Government” which is part of the Foundation of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and so of American Law as it was meant to be.
The right to privacy is a joke that in my opinion is used to obscure the right to do with your own property what you see fit. The closest the U.S. Constitution comes to it is in the Forth Amendment when the government is forbidden to make an unreasonable search of your property and thus breaching your ability to hide/conceal your own property.
The accused could argue that the item is his and he can do whatever he wants with it provided it is not harmful to himself or others even if people find such action offensive.
That argument should not work since debaucherious behavior is considered a breach of the natural right to liberty of what the law of the U.S. government is base according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
That of course leaves the normal way of changing laws which is to get legislation changed. If the people chose to tolerate a breech of natural law then that is their choice.
Source 1 is the article about Acosta v. Texas
Source 2 is Texas Penal Code Section 43.21
Source 3 is Chapter II of John Locke’s “Second Treatise On Civil Government” which is part of the Foundation of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and so of American Law as it was meant to be.
posted by Kerwin | 10:30 PM
2 Comments:
I'm not a libertarian, so I obviously believe in decency laws.
I tend to look at whether the action is known to harm society or significantly harm the right to life or health of those perform it. I do not have enough information on sex toys to really make a call.
The closest I know is pornography which causes harm to individuals and to society because it says that sexual activity is a moral choice even before and outside marriage or in the various situations it is portraying.
There is significant justification in outlawing it, even if I may chose not to do so, since there is always harm to some extend as you can not be sexually loyal to your spouse if you are having sex with an object.
Post a Comment
<< Home