Details for this torrent 


Degradation: The History of Obscenity and Hate Speech (2011)
Type:
Other > E-books
Files:
1
Size:
1.08 MB

Texted language(s):
English
Tag(s):
Obscenity Hate Speech Law First Amendment

Uploaded:
Mar 7, 2013
By:
penfag



Kevin W. Saunders, Degradation: What the History of Obscenity Tells Us about Hate Speech. New York University Press, 2011.

ISBN 9780814741443 | 256 pages | PDF

Throughout history obscenity has not really been about sex but about degradation. Sexual depictions have been suppressed when they were seen as lowering the status of humans, furthering our distance from the gods or God and moving us toward the animals. In the current era, when we recognize ourselves and both humans and animals, sexual depiction has lost some of its sting. Its degrading role has been replaced by hate speech that distances groups, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, not only from God but from humanity to a subhuman level.

In this original study of the relationship between obscenity and hate speech, First Amendment specialist Kevin W. Saunders traces the legal trajectory of degradation as it moved from sexual depiction to hateful speech. Looking closely at hate speech in several arenas, including racist, homophobic, and sexist speech in the workplace, classroom, and other real-life scenarios, Saunders posits that if hate speech is todayΓÇÖs conceptual equivalent of obscenity, then the body of law that dictated obscenity might shed some much-needed light on what may or may not qualify as punishable hate speech.

Kevin W. Saunders is Charles Clarke Chair in Constitutional Law at Michigan State University College of Law. He is the author of "Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Media's First Amendment Protection and Saving Our Children from the First Amendment" (NYU Press, 2003).

Comments

Historically obscenity was about taboos and offense. Marxist religion twists this into exploitation.
"Obscenity has not really been about sex.." I've read a bit on this subject. That thesis is certainly true in some cases, but it is an absurd statement as a generalization. To prove it requires knowledge of intent by the creators, which is rarely available. The science does not support this. Conclusions based on it are suspect at best. Further the fact that we have banned something in the past or present is no argument for continuing to ban it or the concepts alleged to be embodied in it. The history of censorship is a sorry one, and the effects of lessoning it, have not led to the imaginary harms prophesied.