In this case, a man had sent out large-volume mailings to recipients who never wanted them, advertising adult books and films. He was arrested under California's obscenity laws, but appealed saying that his first-amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were violated. The court ruled, with influence from previous decisions, that "states have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material," under some circumstances. The court also established guidelines for cases like this in the future.
My initial thought was that this court action was inappropriate, because in a way it is suppressing freedom. But then we think of something as rudimentary as murder, and we think that maybe people kill other people to feel alive, because they don't feel free. When we ask why we aren't allowed to kill others, it's because of common sense guidelines that were made laws long ago. Maybe laws against murder are suppressing freedom, but it is for good reason, as it is in this case. At first I thought I wouldn't care if I occasionally got pornographic advertisements in the mail, because I'd just recycle them anyway. But then I remembered how disgusted I feel every time I see a sexual TV ad, and realized I would probably be just as disgusted to receive things of the like in my mailbox. Sex is great for manipulating masses into buying products or services; since it is a primal instinct it is subconscious to be more partial to things that allude to us fulfilling this need. It should be below us by now, so I feel that this law helps society progress. If only they could take sexual marketing off the air.
No comments:
Post a Comment