Quote:
Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB
It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Justice Potter Stewart
In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio
Mistress, you will know it when you see it. 
|
Yes, Yes I have no doubt I would know it when I saw it and I have seen it however but does the problem arise in trying to define something that is basically undefinable because each culture tries to define it?
__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL
Last edited by Mistress; 06-01-2007 at 05:10 PM.
|