Talk:Obscenity
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
The following was removed from the article, becauseWikipedia is not a dictionary:
It is defined by the public domain 1913 US Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as:
Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but there is nothing wrong with including a definition within an article!Ortolan88
Indeed, Wikipedia articlesshould 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 pastedtel-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
From the etymology:
Cite please?
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:
I'm no expert in Greek, but AFAIK, "ob" is not Greek, either in prepositions or prefixes. Here'sa search of the Perseus database. Usingomega instead of omicron doesn't show anything either. And here's alist 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.novakyu21:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Latin borrowed many words from Greek, including the wordscene. So the English word could have come from Greek through Latin.Jerambam (talk)14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In theTimeline 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.:
--Jbergquist04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'veremoved a photo ofPete Rose grabbing his crotch because it does not meet ourFair use criteria for use in this article.FreplySpang23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article:
"It is still an offence to send obscene material by theRoyal 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_b00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently about the US. There is some stuff on the UK and obscenity/indecency onCensorship_in_the_United_Kingdom but I'm not sure how we should handle this.Secretlondon18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.—Precedingunsigned comment added byMarkkernes (talk •contribs)22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following appears in the article:
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]
I just found this article, which seems a bit like aWP: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'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)
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]
Most of this has been transferred here. This is some additional content:
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 1868Regina 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 theHicklin 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 ofRoth 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. TheMiller 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) TheMiller decision is still the law for legally punishable obscenity in today's society.
"(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]
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?—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.143.231.138 (talk)00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 has anundue focus on US law. I proposed we split out the information on US law to its own article, with a summary here perWikipedia:Summary style. Precedents include:
I proposeUnited States obscenity law, but we can also considerObscenity 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]
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]
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]
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, seeprofanity"?— Precedingunsigned comment added by86.26.13.2 (talk)13:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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).— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.176.169.240 (talk)17:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onObscenity. Please take a moment to reviewmy 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 thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectPrurience has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 12 § Prurience until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬10:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
