[opendtv] Re: Garrison Keillor: Talk about obscenity

(corrected response; the previous one went out prematurely)

<rehash for continuity's sake>
"The Law is not based on logic, it is informed by experience."   Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes

My take on this "twist" is that laws, until recently were written almost
exclusively by men, and breasts on men are not sex organs.
</rehash for continuity's sake>

I'm not so sure that women in law see any reason to change the current state
of the law on this matter.

And, until someone appoints you to replace the entire supreme court, I'll
stick with the laws and rulings as published, defintions be damned.

A simple reading of legal hornbooks or treatises (these are law terms of art
for specific classes of books) on indecency/obscenity might be very
instructive.  I recognize that Nevada has no law school, so finding the more
on point "Pike & Fischer Radio Reporter (a legal gazeteer) compendium of
rulings on broadcast indecency and obscenity might be hard to come by in
your neck of the woods, but it would be helpful for an understanding of this
matter in the broadcast context.

Wanna place money on whether the Janet Jackson fines will survive court
challenge?  I'd be willing to stake $50.00 on it -- and my normal limit for
bets is $0.05.

One recent upshoot, by the way, of breasts not being secual organs is that
by federal statute,  and that of many states, women can breast feed their
children (I don't know what the upper age is, if there is such a limit) in
public without fear of arrest.

Try doing something in public with a sex or excretory organ, and see what
happens!  (I have a misdemenor citation for public urination, and only
because the cop on bicycle had a sharp eye and spotted me at night, more
than 200 feet away from where I did my deed.  He was the "public.")

John Willkie




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dgrimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:58 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Garrison Keillor: Talk about obscenity


>
> "...under FCC and federal precedent, breasts are not sexual..." --John
> Willkie
>
> How can anyone argue that the breast is not sexual?  One sex, the female,
> has developed breasts, and the other, the male, does not.  We don't need a
> law or a ruling to define a breast as sexual.  By definition, it is a
> sexual organ.
>
> It would be hard to argue that the intent of Janet Jackson's exposure was
> not sexual.  She has not given birth nor did she attempt to feed a baby at
> the unveiling of her breast. It will be easy to define it as "patently
> offensive as  measured by contemporary community standards  for the
> broadcast."  Obviously, there will be arguments otherwise, but I can't
> think of any that would be reasonable or logical.  But then again, our
> society values reason and logic so lightly, even though it is crucial to
> our civility.
>
> Dan Grimes
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: