[opendtv] Re: Garrison Keillor: Talk about obscenity

While I can appreciate how the supreme court's definition of the breast
effects rulings on indecency, it has no bearing on the definition of
sexuality.  In fact, many of the rulings of the supreme court have little
to do with natural law.

UNLV has a law school:
http://www.law.unlv.edu/

With a law library:
http://www.law.unlv.edu/library.html

We do quite a bit of programming for them, and some extremely interesting
material I might add.  We will be producing a forum on human rights next
month:
http://www.law.unlv.edu/saltman_Events.html

I admit that I have not studied much law, especially broadcasting law.  I
am only the lowly technical help for our cable cast station.  But I do
follow politics, which I often find lacking in reason and logic, but an
important part of our living.  And the law is important to live by when it
is just.

As to the quote by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes:

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt
necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories,
intuitions of public policy avowed or unconscious, even with the prejudices
which judges share with their follow-men, have had a great deal more to do
than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be
governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many
centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms
and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

I think he is telling us our system has been molded by everchanging
humanistic approaches rather than underlying principals and truth.  I think
he saw this when he said later of his work in law:

"It cost me some years of doubt and unhappiness before I could say to
myself: 'The law is part of the universe--if the universe can be thought
about, one part must reveal it as much as another to one who can see that
part. It is only a question if you have the eyes."

As to whether I would bet on a court ruling--NO WAY!  No one can predict
how the courts will go, even when there are hard and fast laws.

Dan Grimes




                                                                                
                                       
                      "John Willkie"                                            
                                       
                      <JohnWillkie@eart        To:       
<opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>                                       
                      hlink.net>               cc:                              
                                       
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  [opendtv] Re: Garrison 
Keillor: Talk about obscenity          
                      opendtv-bounce@fr                                         
                                       
                      eelists.org                                               
                                       
                                                                                
                                       
                                                                                
                                       
                      09/27/2005 10:53                                          
                                       
                      AM                                                        
                                       
                      Please respond to                                         
                                       
                      opendtv                                                   
                                       
                                                                                
                                       
                                                                                
                                       




(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
>




-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: image/gif
-- File: graycol.gif


-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: image/gif
-- File: ecblank.gif


-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: image/gif
-- File: pic32591.gif


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: