“First Amendment” atttorneys support showing of porn on college campus

By: Chris Johnson

Personal note:

In recent days, we published a story entitled: “Showing adult films on campus debases both men and women.”

Quoting from the April 5 article:

“So the porn industry is now in the business of educating our youth. A spokesman for Digital Playground expressed disappointment with the cancellation of a public screening of one of the company’s porn movies at the University of Maryland, College Park, claiming that showing such a movie ‘opens up a discussion, a discourse on sexuality and gender roles.’ …”

Despite the cancellation, predictably the concern does not end there. Pat Trueman, former head of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Enforcement Section in DC shares the following insight:

“Many of the so-called ‘First Amendment attorneys’ are rushing to support U of Maryland students for showing a porn film on campus claiming, wrongly, that such conduct is protected by the U.S. Constitution. They use the same arguments that every porn defendant in every case has unsucessfully has used, that the film has artistic value. When forced to watch similiar films, juries don’t buy that argument. Juries know the difference between art and porn even if ‘First Amendment attorneys’ are confused.”
Patrick Trueman

Pat Trueman provided the following article
http://www.examiner.com/x-6428-Baltimore-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m4d8-UMD-claims-First-Amedment-protects-pornographic-screening

UMD claims First Amendment protects pornographic screening
April 8, 5:03 PM

College Park, Md. – Officials at the University of Maryland are defending students who wish to host a screening of a pornographic movie. The movie, entitled “Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge,” is produced by Digital Playground, which calls itself “the leader in adult film-making.”

Students and school officials cite First Amendment protections as a justification for the movie screening. My guess is that most of the students think that is a sufficient argument, but the United States Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect all speech. Among the unprotected classes of speech is obscenity.

The Court, in Miller v. California (1973) set forth the current standard. In order to be characterized as obscene, and thus not afforded First Amendment protection, material must:

1) Appeal to the prurient interest;

2) Offend contemporary community standards; and

3) Taken as a whole, lack serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

University officials and various interest groups are citing the third prong as a blow to the obscenity argument. I could not disagree more, and I hope you will concur after reading my analysis.

Let’s look at this proposed screening thoroughly while applying the governing standard set forth by the nation’s highest court.

The movie clearly appeals to the prurient interest. After all, that is the central and solitary aim of pornography. The pornography industry depends on the prurient interest of consumers. Its very existence is a result of, and future viability depends on, such an interest.

The movie clearly offends community standards. It is worth noting that “community standards” should be analyzed on a local, state-level basis. This was the court’s instruction in Miller. Evidence of what communities in San Francisco and Vermont view as offensive are irrelevant. Residents of Maryland have not surrendered all morals, and they still view public screenings of pornography as morally abhorrent and socially taboo. The outrage from residents and their elected officials is sufficient substantiation of this assertion.

The artistic value of the film is non-existent. The Court, in Miller, qualified the obscenity standard with the third prong to provide exceptions where materials have other value. Examples of artistic value would be a nude painting. Scientific value would be a medical journal. Of course proponents of the screening are arguing that the pornographic movie has artistic value. They have to in order to justify the screening. But, they fail to mention that Digital Playground produced an R-rated version of the movie. If there is an interest, other than appealing to the prurient interest, why are students and officials not showing the R-rated version instead of the unrated version?

It may feel wrong to abridge First Amendment rights because of the long-standing belief that the First Amendment is one of the most important and unique rights bestowed upon Americans. But, the history of the First Amendment stems from the infinite value of political speech. The Founders recognized the value of vigorous political debate, and recognized the danger of oppression by powerful political leaders without the First Amendment. From there, speech proceeds down the spectrum until it reaches the point that it serves no legitimate interest while contemporaneously damaging the society as a whole. Fighting words, incitement to violence, and defamation of character are other examples of speech that have been held to present a danger that outweighs the value of uninhibited expression.
http://www.examiner.com/x-6428-Baltimore-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m4d8-UMD-claims-First-Amedment-protects-pornographic-screening

==================
In closing, one of the concerns that many of us have is that as the Obama administration unleashes its liberal, statist agenda – pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography (David Ogden pornography attorney as Obama’s 2nd in command at U.S. Justice Department – that pornographers will become increasingly emboldened as we see in the article under discussion here.

I find myself as burdened over our country as never before in my 62 years. I’m not oblivious to what is unfolding. Presently, we are mostly hearing about the massive, godless changes. Within days, weeks, months and years, we will feel, see, taste, experience the fallout from these ramrodded changes foisted upon us by the most liberal, multicultural president in the history of our country!

But, I’m a Christian. I have learned (and am learning) and fear that I have much more to learn about the reality that our hope is not in men, but in the Living God.

Sharing some devotional thoughts:

“The Christian life is a heated battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil, and it is not for the faint of heart. In this war we will suffer seeming defeat and enjoy God-given sucess. At times we will be exhilarated, and at other times loss will discourage us. Yet we must never give up. Jesus’s victory over Satan at the cross (Col. 2:13-15) has decided the war. Victory is guaranteed for God’s people, and it is now slowly working itself out in our lives and in the created order.

Philippians 3:12-16 calls us to forget what is behind us and press on toward the goal. Paul knew his reward was sure in Christ. But he also knew that he would receive it only by pressing forward, working out his salvation with fear and trembling just as Christ was working in him (Phil. 2:12-13). Sanctification (our growth in holiness) is a cooperative effort between us and God. He makes our victory certain in Christ, but we only know that it is ours if we press on away from sin and toward Jesus (2 Peter 1:10-11).”
[Taken from Table Talk, Ligonier Ministries, April 8, 2009, www.ligonier.org]

===============
To donate online:
https://americandecency.org/folder.php?f=donate
=================

To purchase a copy of “Fireproof” – one of the most inspirational Christian films of all time.
Call 888-733-2326.

==========================

American Decency Association
Bill Johnson, President
P.O. Box 202
Fremont, MI 49412
ph: 231-924-4050
https://americandecency.org

---