Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
However, the legislation did not define "obscenity", which was left to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis. In the United States, the suppression or limitation of what is defined as obscenity raises issues of freedom of speech and of the press, both of which are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The rule provides that speech is unprotected if it "visually depicts" children below the age of majority and "performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals". [63] In contrast to the rules for simple obscenity, private possession of child pornography "may be outlawed". [64] While this exception is very concrete, it is also limited.
The court drew a sharp distinction between speech that meets the legal definition of "obscene" and speech that is "indecent" (sexually charged but not rising to the level of "obscene"). The court held that obscene speech could be restricted, but that merely indecent speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court also recognized a real ...
Speech crimes are certain kinds of speech that are criminalized by promulgated laws or rules. Criminal speech is a direct preemptive restriction on freedom of speech, and the broader concept of freedom of expression. Laws vary by country in accordance with the legal principles that form the basis of their system of jurisprudence.
Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity under the First Amendment.. The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v.United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.
The First Amendment puts protection for expressive content in terms that are both sweeping and absolute: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" [2] Despite this broad protection, the roots of U.S. attempts to legally suppress obscenity extend back to the English common law offense of obscene libel and censorship of stage plays by the Master of the Revels.
The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 81–18 vote on June 15, 1995. [2] As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.