The phrase "I know when I see it" is a daily expression used by a speaker to categorize facts or events that can be observed, even if the category is subjective or does not have clear parameters. This phrase was used in 1964 by US Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, to describe his threshold test for obscenity at Jacobellis v. Ohio . In explaining why the material in question in the case was indecent under the Roth test, and therefore an unprotected protected speech, Stewart wrote:
I will not today try further to determine the kind of material I understand to be embraced in the short-core description ["hard-core porn]", and I may never succeed in doing so. But I know it when I see it , and the movie involved in this case is not it.
That expression became one of the most famous phrases in the history of the Supreme Court. Although "I know that when I see it" is widely cited as Stewart's test for "obscenity", he never uses his own word "obscenity" in his brief approval. He merely states that he knows what fits the "short description" of "hard-core pornography" when he sees it.
Stewart "I know when I see him" standard is touted as "realistic and dashing" and an example of candor.
Video I know it when I see it
History
The US Supreme Court's ruling on obscenity in the square has been very inconsistent. Although the protection of freedom of speech of the First Amendment has always been considered, both the interpretationalist Constitution and the original author have limited this right to account for public sensitivity. Before Roth v. United States in 1957, the general rule of law derived from the British case of 1868 Regina v. Hicklin has articulated that anything "corrupt and corrupt [s]] Those whose minds are open to such immoral influence" are said to be obscene, and therefore prohibited. The Roth case provides a clearer standard for deciding what constitutes pornography, stating that obscenity is a material in which "the dominant theme is taken as an overall appeal for the pramic good," and that "the average person, applying the standards of the contemporary community" will not approve , Reaffirming the 1913 case of the United States v. Kennerley . This standard allows many works that are called obscene, and although Roth's decision recognizes "all ideas even have the smallest social importance... have full protection of the [sic] warranty," Judges place public sensitivity on the protection of individual rights.
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) narrows the scope of Roth's decision. Judge Potter Stewart, in his agreement on majority opinion, created a standard in which all speeches were protected except for "hard-core pornography". As for, precisely, hard-core pornography, Stewart said, "I will not go any further to determine the kind of material I understand to be included in that brief description, and I may never succeed in doing that, but I know that's when I see it, and the movie involved in this case is not that. "The film in question is Louis Malle's The Lovers .
This has been modified in Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), where obscenity is defined as something that is overtly offensive, attracts an active interest, and there is no redeeming social value. However, this leaves behind the final decision of what is obscene to the wishes of the courts, and does not provide an easily applicable standard for review by a lower court. This changed in 1973 with Miller v. California . The Miller case establishes what came to be known as the Miller test, which is clearly articulated that three criteria must be met for a job that is lawfully subject to state regulations. The Court recognizes the inherent risks in certifying what constitutes obscenity, and certainly limits the scope of the criteria. These criteria are:
- The average person, applying local community standards, looking at the work as a whole, should find that it attracts a reckless interest.
- The work should describe or describe, in a clear offensive, sexual behavior, or excretory function.
- This work as a whole must not have "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values".
The third criterion relates to the judgments made by "reasonable people" of the United States as a whole, while the first two relate to members of the local community. Because of the larger scope of the third test, it is a more ambiguous criterion than the first two.
Maps I know it when I see it
See also
- Digestive reasoning
- Case-based reasoning
- Casuistry
- Common sense reasoning
- Duck test
- Deliberate negligence
- Kualia
References
External links
- The Movie Day of the Supreme Court or "I Know That When I See It": History Definition of Obscenity
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments