More Obscenity

At the beginning of our obscenity discussion in Con Law last week, the prof reminded us about Steve York, a student at UC San Diego who engaged in sexually explicit tactics last spring, apparently part of a growing campus-based challenge of free speech through pornographic expressions. UC San Diego has a student tv station broadcast on closed-circuit television on campus, ostensibly outside the control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates indecent television content and has the power to ban obscene content.

Once again Mr. York exercised his desire to shock and awe. Last Thursday night he aired content showing him having unprotected sex with an "unidentified adult actress" to acknowledge National Freedom of Speech Week. All just to push the envelope, since UCSD hasn't yet articulated the rules of the tv station's charter in the wake of Mr. York's "expressions" last spring.

Why am I mentioning this? B/c my prof has received phone calls from Steve. He says he's not representing him, but the prof seems to know what's going on and told us all to "watch the news" to see what would happen in the aftermath of the latest York-ism. Prof is on the cutting-edge of all this obscenity stuff. I hear his Cyberlaw class is primarily porn. Hmm. Maybe I'll have to change my schedule and fit that in . . .

The legal standards for what constitutes obscenity have been set forth in a 3-part test articulated in 1973 (yes, twenty-two years ago, before VHS, pay-per-view, cable, and widespread enjoyment of the internet). To show something is legally obscene: 1. must be patently offensive to the average person applying community standards (which community? the one where the material was produced or the one where it was consumed? courts have tended to uphold the latter), 2. appeal primarily to the prurient interest (ie lewd, lustful, etc), 3. have no redeeming social value through literary, artistic, scientific, or other means.

It's arguable that a male college student engaged in sexual activity with a porn actress may not violate community standards and may have redeeming social value as a commentary on pushing the standard of obscenity laws in a blatant exercise of potentially protected speech. Dunno for sure. But it's possible.

Back to my studies.