Should Justice Douglas Ban The Definition Of Obscenity?

261 Words2 Pages
Justice Douglas who dissents, points out the good intention by the Court to make new definitions and formulations. However, it is worth to understand that nor the Constitution nor Bill of Rights mentions obscenity. Also, at the time when Bill of Rights was written there was no distinction between obscene materials and press, and that the 1st Amendment protected all types of press. Thus making obscene material to be equal with other types of press. Only constitutional amendment should the power to enact such guidelines that deal with censorship (O`Brien, 508). It is not rational to allow governments to ban certain expressions because they are not appealing to some people. If such an act is allowed, than freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the 1st Amendment becomes useless, and that every material could be banned based on this test. People cannot be punished for expressing their views just because those views might not be appealing to some judge or jury (O`Brien, 508).…show more content…
The argument is that people might decide that every expression is necessary for each individual community in order to become more mature (O`Brien,

More about Should Justice Douglas Ban The Definition Of Obscenity?

Open Document