Talk:Obscenity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed dictionary definition[edit]

The following was removed from the article, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary:

It is defined by the public domain 1913 US Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as:

Obscene: (adjective)
Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing of presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure; as, obscene language; obscene pictures.
Foul; fifthy; disgusting.
Inauspicious; ill-omened.

Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but there is nothing wrong with including a definition within an article! Ortolan88

Indeed, Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition. Ideally it should be written as a plain English prose sentence, and not contain dictionary-only stuff like parts of speech, extraneous senses, old usage citations, and such. --LDC

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so a sentence copied and pasted tel-quel from a dictionary, with or without the mention of the source, sounded little elegant to me, unappropriated. Of course, that content can still be included, if coherent, in the article; we should try to explain the concept and not the word. --Gianfranco

Well, I know that, so rewrite it then! Ortolan88
doing just that... to allow comparison by the reader of one dictionary definition to that which is presented in the next paragraph (the challenges by societies in trying to define it) BodyPride 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious etymology?[edit]

From the etymology:

(originally ob scenus—literally off the stage)

Cite please?

A better etymology?[edit]

Numerous sources give something on the lines of: from the Latin word obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable", and possibly derived from ob caenum, literally "from filth". So I'm using that. -- The Anome 17:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[ http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/] 

defines- scaena, scena : stage or tent, even foliage

This has always been my preferred etymology as it takes some of the issue away from the issue and allows one to refer to materails intended for discreet consumption by individual self-determination. this obviously has liuttle to with the traditional legal defintion, but i think it's the real definition intended by Petronius, Pliny et al.

Then where did the s come from? Jerambam (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ă== Greek etymology? == From the article:

Obscenity and its parent adjective obscene take their derivation from the Greek terms ob skene, which literally means "offstage".

I'm no expert in Greek, but AFAIK, "ob" is not Greek, either in prepositions or prefixes. Here's a search of the Perseus database. Using omega instead of omicron doesn't show anything either. And here's a list of Greek prepositions, although it's Koine (a.k.a. "New Testament") Greek, I don't think it's too different from classical (Attic, among other dialects, which would be more appropriate ... time period if the phrase is in reference to a Greek theater) as far as prepositions go. Anyways. I can't find any online etymologies that goes as far back as Greek, but I'm going to be back in town in 3 days (where I have access to OED), and I'll check/change it then. novakyu 21:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin borrowed many words from Greek, including the word scene. So the English word could have come from Greek through Latin. Jerambam (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupting Youth[edit]

In the Timeline of Ancient Greece it states that in 399 BC "Socrates, Greek philosopher, condemned to death for corrupting youth." And in modern times there are still laws against it, i.e.:

18 USC Sec. 1470
Transfer of obscene material to minors
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another
individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that
such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both.

--Jbergquist 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unfree picture of Pete Rose[edit]

I've removed a photo of Pete Rose grabbing his crotch because it does not meet our Fair use criteria for use in this article. FreplySpang 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mail[edit]

From the article:

"It is still an offence to send obscene material by the Royal Mail [1]."

The link given does not mention the Royal Mail specifically. If this were the case, then it would presumably be legal to send such material by any other courier. What the news link actually says is that it is illegal to sell adult-only videos and DVDs by mail order. I have for now changed the article to reflect this, does anyone have a source specifying Royal Mail specifically? boffy_b 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view[edit]

The article is currently about the US. There is some stuff on the UK and obscenity/indecency on Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom but I'm not sure how we should handle this. Secretlondon 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article would grow to excessive listings if the explicit details of various nations were to be included in full detail.
I suggest that only an explanation and reference links to the more detailed pages within that specific nation's own page should be maintained as done with the United Kingdom who already has listed articles on their government's policy of obscene acts.

Removal of link to U.S. v. Extreme Associates[edit]

I have removed the link to U.S. v. Extreme Associates from the sentence, "The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity, but that it is unconstitutional to pass laws concerning the personal possession of obscenity per se." because the Supreme Court has not ruled on Extreme's claim that it can legally sell/transport obscene material interstate. Extreme has made that claim in its defense, and a panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the trial judge's dismissal of charges against Extreme, which the Supreme Court refused to review; however, Extreme has not yet been tried, and the Supreme Court has not made any definitive statement regarding interstate transportation in the Extreme case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkernes (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google to show community standards[edit]

incorrect example in article?[edit]

The following appears in the article:

For example, in the United States currently, images of mere human nudity and single couple heterosexual vaginal-only penetration are listed as protected speech, while images showing anal and homosexual penetration are presently not.[citation needed]

I don't think that's correct. Anal porn and gay porn are very popular, and I have never heard of their dissemination being restricted in any jurisdiction in the United States. Unless somebody comes up with a source for this in the next few days, I think I'm going to remove it from the article. Capedia (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no response. I'm removing it. Capedia (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Censorship[edit]

I just found this article, which seems a bit like a WP:POVFORK of this one - it covers the topic of obscenity law, but from a notably anti-censorship point of view. Perhaps it should be merged into this one? Robofish (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Both articles are quite poorly written at the moment, and filled with anecdotal and POV material, but what content is worth keeping from Sex Censorship should definitely be here, and Sex Censorship itself should be reworked completely or deleted. Personman (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free public domain source (CRS report)[edit]

I'm making an effort to put CRS reports on their relevant talk pages -- here's one on US law with respect to obscenity and indecency -- [2]

(by the way, as a US law student, I can see this page needing to grow a new page, "Obscenity (United States law)" fairly soon)

  • PS : see my contribs page for a list of pages I've added CRS reports to Agradman talk/contribs 08:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Law / References[edit]

I've added a refimprove template to the U.S. law section since it includes many unsourced statements (and very few sourced ones.) These statements include analysis of national consitutions in general, interpretations of U.S. law and U.S. court decisions, and comparative analysis of national laws. Obviously analysis like this requires citations. There are so many unsourced statements, I've added the template to the section instead of marking each statement. --72.188.212.156 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content of Sex censorship[edit]

Most of this has been transferred here. This is some additional content:

History and background of Obscenity Law[edit]

The first instance of Obscenity Law can be seen around the end of the 16th century when certain pedagogues decided to no longer give indecent books to children. By the end of the 18th century the concept of childhood sexual innocence led to anti-masturbation hysteria in Europe and America. This in turn sought early attempts to censor sexually arousing art and literature.

In 1842 the first federal obscenity law was passed in the United States. This law allowed Customs Services to confiscate "obscene or immoral" pictures. This was also seen when certain state laws prosecuted books or illustrations seen as "immoral or obscene."

In 1868 Regina v. Hicklin created a definition for criminally punishable obscenity which the American courts soon adopted. Shortly after in 1873 the "Comstock Law" was passed which banned the sending of any "obscene, lewd, or lavascious book, pamphlet book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication of vulgar or indecent character" or "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of contraception or procuring of abortion." (2)Regina v. Hicklin, 3 Queens Bench 360, 362 (1868).

In the 1930s two major cases which involved two pieces of literature entitled "The Sex Side of Life" written by Mary Ware Dennett and "Ulysses" written by James Joyce started to change some court's minds and repudiate the Hicklin standard. Dennett's conviction was reversed due to the facts that it was a learning tool for young people and that the article was not conveyed in indecent terms. Three years later the "Ulysses" decision was reversed due to the facts that the novel was more "emetic" than "aphrodisiac" (3) United States v. One Book Called "Ulysses," 5 F. Supp. 182, 183-185 (S.D.N.Y. 1933) affirmed, United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F.2d 705, 706-707 (2d Cir. 1934) as stated and unlikely to "stir the sex impulses or lead to sexually impure or lustful thoughts."

In 1957 in the case of Roth v. United States it was written for the court that there are sexual materials that are prurient, appeal to the average adult and utterly lack redeeming social importance which were not protected by the first amendment

Then in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that a new obscenity test would allow local communities to set their own censorship. The Miller decision was a three part test which (A) Does the material depict or describe activities or organs in an offensive manner? (B) Would the average person, applying "contemporary community standards" find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals predominantly to a "prurient" interest in sexual or excretory matters? (C) Does the material as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?(9) Miller vs. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973) The Miller decision is still the law for legally punishable obscenity in today's society.

What is Sexually Explicit Conduct?[edit]

"(A) Sexual intercourse, including genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (B) Bestiality; (C) Masturbation; (D) Sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (E) Lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Child Pornography Section[edit]

The section on child pornography indicates that virtual depictions of child pornography are illegal in America. The court case in the following link indicates that virtual depictions of child pornography are in fact legal. http://supreme.justia.com/us/535/234/case.html Has the law been overturned, or should the information be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.231.138 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the law has been changed based on that ruling. Look at PROTECT Act of 2003 and Legal status of cartoon porn depicting minors in the US.129.7.240.199 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence[edit]

In the section titled "Public funding/public places", the following appears: Even with this law in place it is hard for artists who have addressed sexually explicit work in work because of complaints which are generally in the form of "inappropriate for children" or seen as a form of "sexual harassment." Therefore the arts works are removed and at times there are official "no nudity" policies that are put in place.[20]

It doesn't seem to make sense. What does "explicit work in work" mean? I would correct it, but I really have no idea what thought is trying to be conveyed here. Could the author please rewrite it? (above comment added by Van Vidrine on 10 August 2011)

This misworded sentence subsequently got moved to United States obscenity law. I finally reworded it on 28 May 2023 to read "sexually explicit matter".

Split section on US law into separate article?[edit]

This has an undue focus on US law. I proposed we split out the information on US law to its own article, with a summary here per Wikipedia:Summary style. Precedents include:

I propose United States obscenity law, but we can also consider Obscenity laws of the United States. I'll wait a week before taking any action. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented this change and begin summarizing the US section. Jokestress (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian obscenity law, bestiality[edit]

Is it a criminal offense in Quebec to have in your possession bestiality porn video for the purpose of own private viewing and not having anything to do with its creation, production or distribution?

Wikipedia is unclear, it says: "Section 160 forbidding "bestiality". In addition 'Compelling the commission of bestiality' and 'Bestiality in presence of or by child (under the age of 16) are also separate crimes and all of these offenses are subject to imprisonment up to 10 years."

But I don't think this concerns own private viewing, no? Or am I, by watching/owning a bestiality DVD - am I thus being a obscene, immoral zoophile and thus, should be criminally punished? Like the evil, obscene and immoral homosexuals were just up until recently? --Autismal (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Test[edit]

uh, the standards superseded by the Miller Test include the Miller Test. Someone should probably fix that for clarity. romnempire (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top-of-page thing[edit]

I have quite often heard the word obscenity used as a synonym for profanity (I don't know whether this is a strictly incorrect usage or not). Therefore, mightn't it be a good idea to have a heading at the top reading something like "For the use of foul language, see profanity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Rather obvious especially with such stupidly written sentences as "However, it's been found that films have also been further censored than their heterosexual, male, white counterparts due to gay sex (even if implied)". Someone add a NPOV tag to that section (Censorship in film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.169.240 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Obscenity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Obscenity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obscenity&oldid=1209471695"