Why isn't obscenity covered by the First Amendment?

Answer 1

Earthellism, the new philosophy of the 21st century, weighs in on obscenity and the 1st Amendment. The amount of obscenity on the internet can be interpreted by earthellism as a way of expressing evil atheistic views in the context of dening the existence of a human soul. We as human beings have a human soul but many human beings want to deny the existence of a human soul and feel it is OK to say or display anything no matter how dehumanizing it is. We can use the 1st Amendment to say your free speech is protected but you also reveal your true self in free speech. When one dehumanizes women they act as atheistic human devils wanting to believe some women do not possess a human soul. Obscene and inhumane acts, speeches or images are best understood as hell on earth episodes and those involve expose themselves as atheistic human devils or acting like atheistic human devils. When one denies the existence of a God, or a human soul or a hell, they expose themselves as potential atheistic human devils. Karma is sometimes used to explain God's justice and one should look into their inner soul before acting out.

Answer

Obscenity is difficult to legislate because to do so, first it must be defined. Obscenity is subjective; its definition is dependent on the person defining it. Your definition may be far different than my definition or the next person's. For well over a century, lawmakers have periodically attempted to find ways to legislate obscenity specifically and put the issue to rest. None have succeeded. The US is basically a country of laws based on the ideals of the majority of the people.

An example from recent history occurred in Salt Lake City, Utah; the headquarters of the Church of Later Day Saints (LDS or Mormons). The LDS leaders wield a fair amount of power in the politics of Salt Lake City. An effort to shut down a pornography shop in Salt Lake City that was in a neighborhood of a public school failed because the owners representatives did a survey of all TV subscribers in the area of the school and found that more than fifty percent of the subscribers paid to have pornography delivered to their homes via the TV. The owner proved that the general population in that community were consumers of pornography and won his case.

This case was not about whether pornography is right or wrong, is good or bad, or even what constitutes pornography. It simply illustrates that the people in that neighborhood had decided for themselves what they were willing to buy; not by their words, but by their actions. It was one case in one neighborhood, but it does illustrate the difficulty in legislating something that the people involved have far different opinions about.

I should also state that I personally am an opponent of pornography. I am also a realist and understand what laws can accomplish and what they cannot.