273

On the issue of what "obscene materials" are, not only the American people cannot reach an agreement, but the views between the nine justices are often in the opposite direction. This is why Ruthberg asked Edward to collect the views of the justices.

Since the justice cannot reach an agreement, the principle of "case-by-case review" can only be adopted when defining "obscene materials".

In other words, the justices either collectively or individually "examine" those things.

This is very uncomfortable for both the prosecution and the defense - the justices are very busy and very old and have no interest in this thing, and may even deliberately delay because they look sad, which makes the "review" process delayed for a long time.

And after reading the target that was "reviewed", we have to discuss with each other to determine whether this is considered a pornographic product.

Originally, the judicial efficiency of the United States was low (Axiom 1: The more lawyers, the lower the judicial efficiency. Axiom 2: The more lawyers, the more money it costs to sue. Axiom 3. Based on the above two points, lawyers are middlemen who make the difference.). Now they have to intervene in the review process, and it is even slower to sue.

Not only did the prosecution and defense feel uncomfortable, but the justice himself was also full of complaints about this.

In 1966, in the case of "Michken v. New York State", the Supreme Court who had worked in the Supreme Court for 30 years and was already 80 years old, publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the Federal Supreme Court's practice of placing pornographic items.

"I hope to express my objection again so that the Supreme Court will take responsibility for the final decision on such cases, and do not let the justices judge each case, one viewpoint and one viewpoint, say something too hard-core to be read or read."

As an elderly person in the High Court at that time, he stood up and said this, which was very kind. He was about to retire anyway, so he let go and do something good for his old colleagues before leaving.

It can be seen that the justice also felt that there was no need to be too careful about this matter, so he could open his eyes and close his eyes. After all, the Supreme Court is responsible for studying the constitution. It seems very out of place for professional issues such as pornography to be considered pornographic, and it is a waste of time.

With this background, it is naturally not a problem to send some pornographic books.

It is normal for human nature, and the people do not recommend it (the American people are not meant to be yangwei). If officials do not investigate, everyone will be happy.

but……

Mr. Miller had five books sent to a store in Xingang City. His son placed an order but his mother signed it.

After the old mother took it apart, she was shocked and called the police immediately!

Then ask a lawyer to sue!

The lawyer ignored Justice Hugo Black's painstaking efforts...

Whoever pays, he will listen to whoever he pays.

Moreover, this case is quite simple, with ready-made legal provisions, just go straight to the trap.

Miller must have thought it was a big deal.

All booksellers in California are doing this, why should I go to court?

His lawyer was also in a difficult situation after getting the case.

Because the case is clear like two flies on a white iron plate, his client will collect money and send it to Mao magazine. According to the current California law, this is going to go to prison.

The fact that steel is irrefutable.

But taking money and eliminating disasters with lawyers should also be professional ethics.

After thinking about it, he really came up with a defense strategy for him.

Start with the definition of what is a "pornographic item".

As long as the meat-scented magazines sent out can legally prove that they are not "pornographic items", wouldn't all the problems be solved?

In Edward's opinion, this kind of thing makes people laugh.

A superpower that has been founded almost two hundred years ago does not even have the definition of what "pornography" is?

The truth is that there is no tmd!

Otherwise Justice Hugo Black wouldn't have said that sentence.

Not only does there not be a relatively complete definition of pornography.

Even for "children's sq items", there is a huge legal gap.

It was already 1969, and only California and New York states have legislation prohibiting the use of children in the process of making pornographic items, or using children to spread sq items, or perform sq performances.

But these two states have the most open attitude towards other pornographic products. Instead, those so-called conservative states completely ignore this. The reason behind this is quite intriguing.

A country that claims to be the most legal person has no unified definition of sq products, and careful analysis is not without reason.

In fact, the definition of "pornography" has always been a troublesome thing, just like a scumbag, constantly entangling in the development of human civilization.

In ancient or modern times, the problem was not too big. After all, although the text and pictures were yellow, the communication effect was just that. Whether it was a Gutenberg printing machine or a large offset printing machine representing the highest technology, it was still only "inducing information". The real part was thought by people themselves.

But after entering the film era, things began to change...

In the early days, there were many Hollywood film companies, such as pornographic films, low funding requirements, and low venue requirements. A movie that was suitable for small companies was very suitable for entry into small companies. Fortunately, there were not many people, and most people were open-minded and turned a blind eye. They were reported to the Supreme Court, and nine old people were responsible for review.

At that time, there was a special afternoon every week, when the justices sat together, watching the films and having a fierce discussion with each other, and their faces were red and their necks were thick and thick as they argued about the details of angle, posture, time, and milliliters.

For young people, such as Edward Chriscal Wright and others, this is probably the best profession, but for a group of old men who use the toilet, it is probably a punishment.

With the outbreak of World War II, everything was transferred to the wartime system, and the trial of traitors was much more important than that of films, so the justices no longer had to suffer.

At the same time, for American soldiers, the hard-core film Coke = combat power is an irrefutable truth. Of course, a powerful combat power exciter cannot be too dead...

This is like opening...

By the 1950s and 1950s, with the development of film technology and the closer connections to the world, Europe began to come from behind. In fact, old Europe had never lagged behind, but it was just that it was because of technical, transportation and economic problems that caused the dissemination to be unobstructed.

The three powers of the United States must face the problem of pornography directly.

The first step is to define the following standard, legal definition of “pornography”.

After having a basic definition, it will be convenient to identify the pornographic films. This can completely become a standardized operation process. Anyone can take up the job after moderate training, just like Edward's "yellow appraiser" in his previous life, and he no longer has to bother the justices.

The old guys were very decent, and they were allowed to banish with their colleagues every week. It was really a disgrace to spread it. Of course, they might hide in the basement of their home and watch secretly, but that was another matter.

Maybe there are still hidden in the basement, twelve years, charming, delicious, unopened, young... red wine is not...

It seems simple, but the justices have never reached an agreement on this issue. Everyone has their own ideas and this idea has been endorsed by the school or some kind of political force.

Everyone has their own opinions and can only gain the smallest common understanding.

The justices first chose "explicit descriptive content" as the definition of "pornographic items".

But later I found out that it was still too broad. To be honest, those movies were nothing to be exposed, but it was common to reveal other places.

Starting from the "Jack Bailis Prison", it was established that only "hard-core pornographic items" are "obscene items", but there is always a lack of unified standards for what "hard-core pornographic items", but it is certain that ordinary exposure will not be forgotten.

The thing that is not "hard core" but is quite yellow is called "indecency" - which has explicit descriptions of sexual intercourse, but is not "hard core pornographic items", but are all "indecency items".

The difference between "indecent" and "hard core" is that the former is protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment, while the latter is not.

(First Amendment: Protecting freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of publishing, and the right to assemble, the right to protest and the right to petition)

As long as the five books Miller sent are not "hard-core pornography", according to the First Amendment of the Constitution, the government shall not interfere in the mailing behavior and cannot review the content of the mailing things, then he will be innocent.

Miller's lawyer made this idea.

So the lawsuit was fought all the way.

The prosecution's government lawyers should try every means to prove that these five books are "hard-core pornography that harms the country and the people, which can harm young people", while Miller's side is completely the opposite.

From a judicial perspective, this involves several famous precedents.

First, the famous jurisprudence for clearly expressing the standard of obscene materials was the case of "Scherin v. Reaganner" in 1868, which held that any object intended to "make an unguarded person who is degenerate or morally corrupt" was considered "obscene materials" and would be punished.

This is also the famous "Hicklin Test".

This test gives judges the power to discretion the pornographic items.

As time goes by, this simple case begins to seem a little overwhelmed.

The reason is that when using the "Hicklin Test" in judicial practice, a single consideration is often made based on a part of the material.

For example, a book with 2000 words is cut off, if the judge thinks that these 2000 words are obscene.

Then the book will be judged as a pornographic product, and must be placed under the jurisdiction of the government - banned!

In fact, the doubts about the "Hicklin Test" have never stopped since the beginning, but they have not become very popular.

The biggest case of questioning the test criteria was at a 1933 hearing on whether the work "Ulysses" by Irish writer James Joyce could be published in the United States.

In 1921, John Summer, director of the New York Suppression Association (an organization that sounds very frightening), and his colleagues seized a certain issue of the literary magazine "Free Review" on the grounds that the chapter "Ulysses" was published.

So magazine editors Margaret Anderson and John Shipp were brought to court, while writer John Cooper Pous and playwright Philip Moller appeared as expert witnesses.

Although both Pous and Moller prove that the plot of Ulysses is so obscure that readers won't notice some of the "x descriptions" in the book.

However, the judge made a ruling in favor of the prosecution, which not only banned the release of the issue of "Small Comment", but also further banned the publication of "Ulysses" in the United States.

As early as 1922, before the ruling, the U.S. Postal Service burned 500 copies of the Ulysses imported from the United States through overseas mail order to prevent the import of the book.

(Edward curled his lips to this, "It's burning a book. If you shoot a few more astrologists and gypsy witches who watch crystal balls, the taste will be even more pure...")

After 11 years, Random House tried to break this precedent and published "Ulysses" in the United States.

In 1933, the "United States v. Ulysses case entered the trial stage.

The defense strategy adopted by the lawyers hired by Random House is to require a unified and comprehensive judgment of the whole book. Perhaps some chapters of the whole book are "indecent", but the whole book is a serious and classic literary work.

Random House also quoted book reviews from professional writers or artists such as Rebecca West, Arnold Bennett and Elliott, trying to prove that the author Joyce is a genius and believes that Ulysses is an epoch-making work and is the excellent reading material needed by the public.

However, the prosecutor has always determined that "Ulysses" is a "threat" to American society!

Lawyers from the Brutal Association said passionately in their statements, “Because (the book) often uses foul language, this is unacceptable in a well-ethical society.”

The judge who tried the case did not use the Hicklin test to determine that the book was "obscene". Instead, he came up with a new precedent for judgment, that is, Ulysses should be regarded as a whole rather than analysed based on its parts.

That is to say, in this case, the judge clearly believed that as long as a book contains "even a little" and can be described positively "being kind to others", the entire book can be protected by the First Amendment and government agencies shall not interfere with its printing, mailing and sales.

Therefore, it was ruled that Ulysses was finally approved for publication and distribution in the United States. In 1934 alone, the first edition of 10,000 books was sold out instantly.

It can be seen how much this punishment represents the development direction of advanced culture and the fundamental interests of the vast majority of the people...

Then there was the case of "Rose v. United States" in 1957.

Rose is a publisher,

He was guilty of mailing ads and books for obscene materials. (Ross is Miller's senior, and Miller did this to be accurate in the validity of this jurisprudence)

Ross' defense attorney did not deny that it was distributed by mail (in fact, Miller's attorney also held the same view), but he insisted that the materials were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chapter completed!