[lbo-talk] Re: "United States vs. Extreme Associates"

[Wendy Lyon]

On 5/26/05, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> However, the courts ("our masters") are the
> interpreters of the law, not Shane, and they have read
> "freedom of speech" to include most speech except
> those in four unprotected categories, matter:
> defamation (libel and slander), incitement to illegal
> activity, obscenity, and "fightin' words" (which last
> is essentially obsolete). 

There's a crucial difference between obscenity and the other three
categories, though.  The other three are not protected because of the
harms that result from them.  Obscenity's lack of protection has
nothing to do with any such harms; it simply isn't held to be *worth*
the Constitution's protection.  So it's easy enough for those of us
who think the Supreme Court is wrong on this issue to do so without
worrying about any slippery slope toward legalising solicitation of
murder.  Obscene speech could easily be protected with the exception
for harm-causing speech kept intact.

When was the last time the Supremes held a work to be obscene, anyway?

 Out of curiosity.