Obscenity and Community Standards
Obscenity and Community Standards
复制标题
淫秽和社区标准
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bret Boyce
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bret Boyce
在本文中，我对美国和加拿大的宪法淫秽原则进行了比较研究，并认为长期以来一直是这一判例的试金石的社区标准测试不能与言论自由和良心自由的基本原则相协调。在美国，社区道德标准的强加与美国最高法院日益明确地拒绝将纯粹的多数主义道德作为刑事监管的基础，特别是在私人性领域，是不一致的。此外，法院接受地方标准在宪法上一直是反常的，在互联网时代更是如此。加拿大最高法院试图制定另一种办法，坚持一种不是以道德而是以伤害，特别是对妇女的伤害为基础的国家标准。然而，这个国家标准在很大程度上是虚构的，声称社区不容忍的任何东西根据定义都是有害的，这在理论上和经验上都是站不住脚的。加拿大法院在最近的一项决定中含蓄地承认了这些困难，该决定似乎完全抛弃了社区标准测试，而纯粹关注“有辱人格”和“非人性化”材料所造成的伤害问题。然而，尚不清楚的是，这种新方法是否能将这一教义从模糊中拯救出来，这种模糊在实践中导致了压制性和歧视性的执行，具有讽刺意味的是，这种执行尤其针对男女同性恋者和女权主义者。因此，美国和加拿大的经验都表明，对淫秽物品的起诉是武断的，而且具有高度的政治性。文章的结论是，禁止淫秽与言论自由是不相容的，无论这种禁止是基于社区标准，还是基于据称来自“有辱人格”和“非人性化”材料的危害。在致力于言论自由和良心自由的社会中，禁止仅由成年人自愿参与制作和传播的露骨色情材料是不合理的。
In this article, I present a comparative study of constitutional obscenity doctrine in the United States and Canada, and argue that the community standards test that has long been the touchstone of this jurisprudence cannot be reconciled with fundamental principles of freedom of expression and conscience. In the United States, the imposition of community standards of morality is at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court’s increasingly explicit rejection of mere majoritarian morality as a basis for criminal regulation, especially in the private sexual sphere. Moreover, the Court’s embrace of local standards was always constitutionally anomalous and is increasingly so in the internet age. The Supreme Court of Canada has tried to develop an alternative approach, insisting on a national standard grounded not in morality but in harm, especially harm to women. However, this national standard is largely a fiction, and the claim that whatever the community does not tolerate is by definition harmful is both theoretically and empirically untenable. The Canadian Court has implicitly recognized these difficulties in a recent decision that appears to jettison the community standards test altogether, and to focus purely on the question of harm caused by “degrading” and “dehumanizing” materials. It is not clear, however, that this new approach rescues the doctrine from the vagueness that has led in practice to repressive and discriminatory enforcement, which, ironically, has been targeted especially against gays, lesbians, and feminists. Both the U.S. and Canadian experiences thus suggest that the obscenity prosecutions have been arbitrary and highly political. The article concludes that the prohibition of obscenity is incompatible with free expression, whether such prohibition is based on community standards, or on the harms that are said to flow from “degrading” and “dehumanizing” material. Bans on sexually explicit materials that involve only consenting adults in their production and distribution cannot be justified in societies committed to the freedom of speech and conscience.