Generally, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Natural law, Natural Right of Liberty, protects Free Speech and Free Expression. At the same time, however, there is a traditoin that pornography can be regulated or even criminalized as a Public Nuisance affecting Morals, under the Police Powers. The question then arises as to whether the First Amendment and Natural Law protects nude photos of women models, such as those found in Playboy and Penthouse. Here, a distinction is made between Erotica, which is Constitutionally protected, and pornography, which is not. The Constitutional test in this area is whether a reasonable person, who is heterosexual, would find the pictures of nude women to be of "Socially redeeming value," or of "Artistic value." First, it is clear that the availability of photos of nude women such as those found in Playboy and Penthouse act to prevent the spread of illegal prostitution which spreads venereal disease and AIDS has socially redeeming value. Thus, photographs or pictures of nude women which are done in good taste, with artistic value, with beautiful women, are constitutionally protected as Erotica, while photos of ugly women, done in bad taste, such as those often found in Hustler, are banned as illegal pornography. Obviously, nude photos of small children or nudes with animals have no socially redeeming value, and are in poor taste, and thus are illegal pornography. The foregoing also meets the Canon Law standards which reasonably allows for nude sculpture, pictures, and photos which have socialy redeeming or artistic value.
The foregoing is a Legal Opinion given by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D. Coif,
Member, United States Supreme Court Bar.
(C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)
No comments:
Post a Comment