CMJR 494 Week 8 Questions

Questions for Week 8 from Chapter 5 in “Freedom of Speech in the United States”

1) Since George Carlin’s monologue, “Filthy Words” much has changed in terms of what is now considered obscene language over the airwaves. With the invent of select radio shows such as the Howard Stern show where he has porn stars and other celebrities come and talk over the air waves it seems that just about any kind of profane and disgusting speech is allowed to be broadcasted. Now, radio talk show hosts can pretty much swear on demand saying obscene and vulgar things about pretty much anyone one they want and it is alright. Yet, while the lines are becoming blurred in terms of what is considered obscene speech, there are still distinguishable lines that do exist. Take Don Imus and the “Nappy headed Ho” comment that cost him his job as a radio host and forced him off the air. My question is: If the line is blurry and profane and disgusting speech in terms of obscene expression has become more about “sensual and erotic images” (pg 121) where would you draw the line? If Howard Stern can have a radio show with porn stars getting naked and doing all kinds of sexual things to each other (and he even has a pay per view late night radio show that is broadcast via television so people can actually see the sexual acts being done in the studio) how can this be allowed? Yet, Don Imus makes a comment about some Rutgers women basketball players and loses his job due to the obscene nature of his language. Where is the line then? Does it have to be related to racist comments? If so, why don’t all the other radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and various others get kicked off the air for racist comments? Once you answer those questions consider the 3rd category of obscenity. Is it still a legitimate claim for obscene speech then? Even though it has been more identified with sensual and erotic content can simple language in the form of spoken words be enough to be considered obscene?

2) On page 132 of the text in the paragraph titled, The foundation Is Laid for the “Roth Test” Judge Bok states that there must be, “a reasonable and demonstrable cause to believe that a crime or misdemeanor has been committed or is about to be committed as the perceptible result of the publication and distribution of the writing in question…The causal connection between the book and the criminal behavior must appear beyond a reasonable doubt” (Pg 132). I would agree with this statement as I think most people would when it comes to determining if a work is obscene based upon it causing “a danger of incitement to criminal conduct”. If any person knows for sure that a certain work is going to cause someone to commit a sexual crime based upon being exposed to that specific work it would be crazy not to declare that work obscene. However, how can any single person 1) determine the intent or effect that a piece of literature has on another individual or 2) determine that even if that individual has the intent to commit a sexual crime based upon exposure to a work they will actually go through with committing the act? What do the words, “Beyond a reasonable doubt” mean to you and how do you think that literature in terms of writing or any form of art can be classified to evoke an intent to commit a sexual crime that can be known by anyone else other than the person intending to commit that crime? If you knew someone had every intention to commit a sexual crime based on their exposure to a certain form of media could you then condemn that literary or video work from being seen by everybody? If so, why or why not? Can you provide any recent examples such as copy cat killings or sexual crimes that have been committed based on any form of literary work?

3) Last week I was intrigued by Gary Atkins’ presentation about definitions of Child Pornography and worldwide ages of consent relating to having sex. I found it very interesting that even though an American citizen may travel outside of the United States, the same sexual consent laws still apply even in an international setting and the same applies for foreign citizens when the come to visit the United States. I have several questions based upon the class discussion. 1) How much of a role do you think biology plays or should play in determining the legal age for two consenting people to have sex? 2) Based upon different cultural understandings of consent relating to sex, can you still hold someone from one culture accountable in another culture for any violation of sexual consent laws they may have committed in a different country? For example the legal age of sexual consent in Washington State is 16/18 meaning that it is legal for a 16-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. In the Philippines it is legal for a 12-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. If an 18-year-old female citizen of the Philippines comes to the United States and has sex with a 12-year-old male can you hold her accountable and charge her with rape? Or do you excuse her because according to her cultural understanding it is accepted even though she was in the United States when the sexual act was committed? If the scenario was reversed and an 18-year-old male had sex with a 12-year-old female would it make a difference? Based upon this knowledge does your answer about how much biology should be involved in determining the age of consent change? If so why or why not?