Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
...even the most prudish community can't ban penthouse or even nude dancing establishments, regardless of local community standards.
|
Thanks, Andrew. But I'm not sure that that is right about the strip clubs. Ten years ago I lived in rural Winder, Georgia, and a fellow wanted to open up a nudie bar, and they wouldn't let him.
I don't recall the legal arguments. Perhaps they wouldn't grant him a liquor license, but I don't think that was it. I just don't remember.
PS - The more I think about it, the more I think that the liquor license was the deal. I have a vague recollection that he opened up with nude girls serving soft drinks and nobody wanted to go, so after a few weeks he closed.
But let's get back to your obscenity/pornography dichotomy. "Obscenity" is a legal term of art, but is the word "pornography" ever used in the Court's decisions? Has the Court ever explicitly made a distinction between obscenity and pornography, or explicitly stated that pornography is protected unless it is obscene?
It seems to me that there was a case where the Court ruled that the govt could ban works which appealled to "prurient interest". And wasn't that then overturned by the Fanny Hill case, which as I recall demanded that the work be "utterly without socially redeeming value"? Then wasn't that overturned by the "community standard" case?