Why not bring suit against the main-stream media and moives who is pushing adultery and sex to the American public and to teens?
It's already been done, CTB and found to be protected under the First Amendment. Yet another wrong decision by our legal system.
Our judges and Justices don't want to define what's inappropriate let alone make decisions about it. Hard core porn is protected. Why would a television junk not be? Look at these court cases.
Taken from:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pornography-obscenity
- Justice Potter Stewart could provide no definition of obsenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio other than exclaiming: “I know it when I see it.” In that 1964 decision, Stewart also said that the Court was “faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable.”
- Justice Hugo Black expressed his frustration with determining whether certain pornography could be prohibited under the First Amendment when he wrote in Mishkin v. State of N.Y.: “I wish once more to express my objections to saddling this Court with the irksome and inevitably unpopular and unwholesome task of finally deciding by a case-by-case, sight-by-sight personal judgment of the members of this Court what pornography (whatever that means) is too hard core for people to see or read.” In other words, he couldn't care less.
- After grappling with the obscenity problem in many cases during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Supreme Court laid out “basic guidelines” for jurors in obscenity cases in its 1973 decision Miller v. California. These include:
[1] Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
[2] Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law.
[3] Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value. The Court reasoned
that individuals
could not be convicted of obscenity
charges unless the materials depict “patently offensive
hard core sexual conduct.”
This means that many materials
dealing with sex, including pornographic magazines, books,
and movies, simply do not qualify as legally obscene.
- Even more fundamentally, nudity does not equal obscenity. The Supreme Court recognized this in Jenkins v. Georgia, when it ruled that the film “Carnal Knowledge” was not obscene. Justice William Rehnquist wrote in that 1974 case that “nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene under the Miller standards.”
- A most troubling aspect of obscenity law concerns the application of community standards for defendants who ship materials of a sexual nature to different parts of the country. Should a defendant in California be subject to the mores of a more conservative locale? The Court in Miller said that it was constitutional for different communities to articulate different community standards in obscenity cases. “To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national community standard would be an exercise in futility,”
- Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote.“Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable ‘national standards’ when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter of fact,” Burger continued. “It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas or New York City.”
- A pressing legal issue still to be resolved is whether federal law can apply local community standards to the global medium of the Internet. The Child Online Protection Act applies local community standards in determining whether material is harmful to minors. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in June 2000, writing that “Web publishers cannot restrict access to their site based on the geographic locale of the Internet user visiting their site.”
There's more, but you get the picture.
since they can switch sides when suitable to their agenda! :smilewinkgrin:
