Is the passion movie obscene?

[Paul Finkelman]

I am teaching obscenity next week in my Con Law 2 class.  My case book 
-- Curtis, Parker, Douglas, Finkelman, Constitutional Law in Context 
(Carolina Academic Press -- contains a North Carolina Statute on Obscene 
literature and exhibitiions. that includes the following definition:  

"As used in this Article, 'sexual conduct' means:
* * *
3) An act of condition that depicts torture, physical restraint by being 
fettered or bound, or flagellation of or by a nude person or aperson 
clad in undergarments or in revealing or bizarre costume."

I  have not seen the movie (I almost never ever see any movie until I 
can rent it, and then I don't see them very often). However, I have read 
enough about the movie to think that it might contain "sexual content" 
under this definition.   I wonder if any of you have any thoughts about 
this.  It is clearly violence, and shows "torture" and "flagellation" of 
someone who is bound; I have not seen the picutres to know if the Jesus 
figure is an traditional loin cloth-like wrapping that one sees in many 
paintings and on the standard  crucifix.  Is so, then this would surely 
be "undergarments" or a "bizarre costume." "Bizarre costume" might also 
apply to the Roman guards who I presume are torturing Jesus.'

So, my question is, does this movie approach "obscenity" under this 
statute.  If nothing else, it would make a great exam question (although 
then I might be forced to got to to the movie, but I suppose I could at 
least write off the ticket on my taxes as "research.," or maybe get my 
dean to pay for it from my research account.)


-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20040228/58212d44/attachment.htm