BrooksBrothers 090312
Bookmark the permalink.
Uno Dei Soli Ambasciatori Possibili
6,347 Responses to BrooksBrothers 090312
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
il blog di Marco De Amicis / Giornalista, papà, uomo dei sogni
6RmvVaq823
I like this post, enjoyed this one appreciate it for posting .
I told the taker that we mailed the form already, maybe late. He came twice after that and left note. He came again tonight around 7:30pm. Will he get the update DB to show our record soon?
I’m pretty pleased to find this great site. I need to to thank you for your time for this wonderful read!! I definitely savored every little bit of it and I have you saved to fav to check out new information on your blog.
“How do you define “obscene”? Is it the community standard?”As of right now, yes. The standard under the Miller Test involves a reasonable person applying contemporary community standards; subsequent cases have upheld either local community level standards, or state level standards. Whereas this may make life miserable for porn addicts in the Bible Belt, assuming obscenity proscription is a must, community-level standards are preferable. They’re likely more speech protective than national standards. Of course, this all assumes obscenity proscription is a must…and I’m not so sure it is.”Can a handful of conservative concerned citizens complaining at the mall define community standards?”Assuming this handful accurately represents the standards of the majority of the community, and assuming the basic tenants for obscenity are found, again, yes, they can.Of course, in the situation at hand, it’d be quite a stretch to fit that photograph into the realm of “obscenity,” so I’m not so sure that these conservative citizens will be too successful. The vague definition of obscenity nonetheless requires that the work shows or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual or excetory conduct. And, the state definition penalizing obscenity must be specific w/ regard to the speech being proscribed; it can’t just say “obscene materials.”Even though commercial speech gets less protection under Central Hudson, I’m not so sure it’s applicable here. Commercial speech can very well amount to political or socially valuable speech, and in this day of commodified art, it’s incredibly hard to say that proposals for economic transactions have no speech value. I’d go so far as to say it’d be really dangerous to place legislators or judges in the role of arbiters of what constitutes art and what constitutes commerce. At any rate, the CH test has generally been applied to regulations seeking to prevent advertisers from misleading the public (such as tobacco or alcohol advertisers). I guess this case could fit under tenant three, but I’d be hard pressed to believe that circumventing free speech doctrine would qualify as a substantial state interest. Even if one supports the suppression of this photo, the suppression still must be subject to the appropriate tests in order to be valid. Merely saying “no obscene speech in commercials” and then restraining the speech with no regard for the definition of obscenity is arbitrary at best, fascist at worst.”will Virginia Beach realize that perhaps its puritan perspective is out-of-sync with progressive America?”If you draw this line of thinking out a little bit, it raises a number of good points. Majoritarian determination of the social value of speech is both unworkable and subordinating. The old SCOTUS adage “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric” comes to mind, but even more than that, current obscenity doctrine invariably involves value judgments on the part of the powerful. Obscenity entails sexual speech that lacks serious literary, scientific, or artistic value. Assuming this is satisfied, then, we assume it is viable to suppress sexual speech. But…doesn’t doing so necessarily presuppose that sexual speech is inherently bad? Doesn’t this equate sex with evil? I know much is made about the “damage” sexual images do on unwitting viewers, but I’d venture to guess (I may be wrong) that it’s only w/in the context of a society w/ an oppressive view of sexuality that such damage is inevitable. Anyway, under this regime, anyone who views sexuality as an important component of their psyche will undoubtedly feel repressed and awkward in a community such as the one proposed by Virginia Beach. I guess what I’m saying is, obscenity law removes healthy notions of sex and sexuality from the public dialogue by equating sex w/ something dangerous and punishable. Thus, in spite of the First Amendment, it allows individuals such as those in Virginia Beach to set the context of acceptable notions of an important human activity. Maybe this is a somewhat tenuous argument, but it almost serves the role of a social prior restraint.That said, I don’t think “progressive America” should set the standard for social discussion any more than old conservatives should. I guess I’m saying that absent incitement, there shouldn’t be a standard, no matter how offensive, hateful, or unorthodox the message is.
Enjoyed reading this, very good stuff, appreciate it. “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” by Euripides.
I’m a religious Jew, who believes, at least in theory, in the Hebrew script existing before the creation of the world, and when I saw the title of this post, I said to myself, “oh, Chinese, what else could it be?”. I guess this concept has been hammered into us so much that it’s a knee-jerk reaction.
This is a very good thing, is your best choice, this is a good thing.
Woh I love your articles , saved to fav! .
I be pleased about, cause I bring into being exactly what I was looking representing. You’ve wrecked my 4 calendar day long hunt! God Bless you man. Boast a vast sunlight hours. Bye