http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/31/national/31SCOT.html
That kind of blows my mind. I mean this is something you'd expect some yahoo like, say, a TV preacher, to put out, but isn't Scalia supposed to be some kind of big-deal intellectual or something like that? Hard to believe he casually dismisses "Lolita" as obviously and grossly inferior, as though it belongs in a class distinct from and below "art", when compared for example to Milo's statue of a naked girl.
Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net
> ...H. Louis Sirkin, representing an adult entertainment trade
> association that brought the constitutional challenge, argued
> that the law's approach was misconceived.
>
> "If there's a murder that looks real on the screen, we don't
> go out and charge anyone with murder," Mr. Sirkin said.
>
> He said the law would have "radical and tragic" consequences.
> "Visual messages of adolescent sexuality will be barred
> regardless of their artistic or scientific merit," he said.
>
> Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "What great works of art
> would be taken away from us if we couldn't see minors
> copulating?"
>
> Mr. Sirkin appeared taken aback by the question. "The
> movie 'Lolita,'" he said after a moment.
>
> Justice Scalia exclaimed with sarcasm, "A great work of
> art!"
>
> Mr. Sirkin offered, "It was critically acclaimed," and added
> to his list the movie "Traffic," which, he noted, won an
> Academy Award.
>
> Justice Scalia was not satisfied. "With all due respect," he
> said, "this is not the Mona Lisa or the Venus de Milo."
>
> "How about `Romeo and Juliet?' " Justice John Paul
> Stevens broke in with a smile. As the audience chuckled,
> Justice Scalia signaled a truce. "Hey, you've seen a
> different version of that than I have," he said...
"Justices Weigh Law Barring Virtual Child Pornography" - Linda Greenhouse, N.Y. Times