Well, Black was a good judge, anyway. Douglas was on our side, but by general agreement a sloppy judge. Any Black & Douglas' reasoning was not that of venerable elder brother, as you know. I agree, and said so, that I think that the obscentity objection should be droppeed. But not because Congress can pass no law regulating speech. That's not textual. It's not good policy either. jks
--- John Mage <jmage at panix.com> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> > Sigh. You can rely on John Mage for legal
> pronouncement -- John's a
> > distinguished attorney. Shane should check with
> his brother before
> > holding forth on the law.
>
> Thanks for Jurisconsult status, but on this question
> venerable eldest
> brother has far better authority than any I could
> give. The view that
> all "obscenity" prosecutions are barred tout court
> by the language of
> the First Amendment was asserted by Justices Black
> and Douglas (pretty
> good judges as judges go) in every single Supreme
> Court obscenity case
> for decades.
>
> For a quick non-technical view of this history (with
> a pessamistic view
> of what is likely to happen today were obscenity
> prosecutions to resume)
> see "Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It
> When I See It": A
> History of the Definition of Obscenity"
> <http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html>
>
> john mage
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com