Is the passion movie obscene?
Paul Finkelman
paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu
Sat Feb 28 15:34:18 PST 2004
we would have to look at NC statutes to answer the specific question. I
am trying sort out the "theoretical" issue here, not make a lawyer's
case that children should not be allowed in the movie. And, to be very
honest, I am interested in this because I think it exposes the absurdity
of obscenity laws and the should put consevatives, including (maybe
especially) religious conservatives on notice that suppression makes all
art, ideas, and literature vulnerable. I think this movie illustrates
the problem.
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> Sorry I misunderstood Paul's post. Whether the movie does qualify
>as containing "sexual conduct" is an interesting question. If the question,
>though, is whether the movie may be displayed when there are minors in the
>audience (what I take to be Paul's rated-R question), presumably we'd need
>to look to North Carolina's obscenity-as-to-minors statute.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu]
>>Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:51 AM
>>To: Volokh, Eugene
>>Cc: 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
>>Subject: Re: Is the passion movie obscene?
>>
>>
>>Eugene: I agree with you, that in the context of the rest of the
>>statute the movie might pass muster; and I am not intersted
>>in making an
>>argument that the movie is obscene; I am pretty much with Black and
>>Douglas on the notion that we should get rid of obscenity
>>prosecutions
>>altogether. My question is, does the movie come under the
>>statute as to
>>"sexual conduct" -- Obviously my posting should have been clearer
>>(should never post things on a Saturday morning!). If, for
>>example, the
>>movie has great deal of "sexual conduct" in it, under the NC statute,
>>would that require that it not be rated R?
>>
>>Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Well, the N.C. statute says:
>>>
>>>(b) For purposes of this Article any material is obscene if:
>>>(1) The material depicts or describes in a patently offensive way
>>>sexual conduct specifically defined by subsection (c) of
>>>
>>>
>>this section;
>>
>>
>>>and
>>>(2) The average person applying contemporary community
>>>
>>>
>>standards relating to
>>
>>
>>>the depiction or description of sexual matters would find
>>>
>>>
>>that the material
>>
>>
>>>taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex; and
>>>(3) The material lacks serious literary, artistic,
>>>
>>>
>>political, or scientific
>>
>>
>>>value; and
>>>(4) The material as used is not protected or privileged under the
>>>Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of
>>>
>>>
>>North Carolina.
>>
>>
>>>(c) As used in this Article, "sexual conduct" means:
>>>(1) Vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse, whether actual or simulated,
>>>normal or perverted; or
>>>(2) Masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of
>>>
>>>
>>uncovered
>>
>>
>>>genitals; or
>>>(3) An act or condition that depicts torture, physical restraint by
>>>being fettered or bound, or flagellation of or by a nude person or a
>>>person clad in undergarments or in revealing or bizarre costume.
>>>
>>> I haven't see the movie, either, but I'm pretty certain
>>>
>>>
>>that taken as
>>
>>
>>>a whole it does not appeal to a prurient interest in sex;
>>>
>>>
>>and I suspect
>>
>>
>>>that, taken as a whole, it has serious artistic value (the statute
>>>omits the "taken as a whole" language from Miller, but I
>>>
>>>
>>assume that a
>>
>>
>>>court would read this provision into the statute).
>>>
>>> Eugene
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu]
>>>Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:17 AM
>>>Cc: Volokh, Eugene; 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
>>>Subject: Is the passion movie obscene?
>>>
>>>
>>>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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>
--
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/f186dfce/attachment.htm
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list