[opendtv] Re: Garrison Keillor: Talk about obscenity

heck, do ANY of them have to do with natural law?  Perhaps Roe v. Wade, but
I find the reasoning/rationale there to be thin, despite my agreeing in the
(legal) outcome.

I shudder at the thought of the supremes defining sexuality.  There are
things that cannot be fixed in court, or should not be the subject of court
cases.  Just one of the reasons I'm contemplating attending law school, but
have no desire to take on the problems of others.

John Willkie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dgrimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: [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.
>

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