Page 326 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Obscen ty and Indecency | 0

deFining oBsCenity
The legal definition of obscenity was developed in a series of Supreme Court cases, most
notably Roth v. U.S., 1957, and Miller v. California, 1974. Currently, in order for a piece of me-
diated communication to be considered obscene—and therefore lacking First Amendment
protection—the following conditions must be met:
1. An average person, applying contemporary local community standards, finds that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest. (The legal definition of “pru-
rient interest” is as follows: a morbid, degrading, and unhealthy interest in sex, as
distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.)
2. The work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by
applicable state law.
3. The work in question lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

American sexual and moral standards vary widely by locale. Yet, new means
of transmitting sexual imagery have rendered this standard difficult to apply.
When a small town decides that they don’t want pornographic magazines in
their local bookstore, residents seeking such material have the option of buying
it in a larger city, where fewer restrictions exist. But whose values should deter-
mine the national standards regarding “taboo” material for electronic media?
The Internet allows for the transmission of explicit imagery to anyone with a
computer, regardless of where they live, making it very difficult to set or enforce
obscenity or indecency laws governing computer communication. Each time a
new communication technology is invented, providing new ways to dissemi-
nate controversial content, our national commitment to freedom of speech is
tested once again. Given the political and religious diversity of our country, the
continuing development of communication technologies, and the ever-popular
nature of sexually explicit media content, the issue of free speech and obscenity
is sure to continue challenging future generations of Americans.

inDECEnCy
In addition to American concerns about sexually explicit media content,
our nation also has a long history of identifying certain words and images as
taboo, and therefore off-limits in “polite society.” At one time in our nation’s
history, social convention served as an effective censor of “vulgar” language
or gestures, and most people were willing to abide by the unwritten rules of
convention. With the many social changes of the late twentieth century, these
rules, like so many others, were gradually tested. Because both radio and tele-
vision are regulated by the U.S. government, these channels of communication
have been the terrain on which the debate about the boundaries of propriety
has taken place.
The FCC, which sets the rules governing our broadcasting system, has de-
fined indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes,