本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/3 03:35 編輯
"state law"並不一定是「一個釘死的標準」。
以Virginia's obscenity statute為例
"... that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
又或Michigan obscenity statute?
「(5) “Obscene” means any material that meets all of the following criteria:
(a) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(b) The reasonable person would find the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(c) The material depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.」
又或死布殊個德州?
(1) "Obscene" means material or a performance that:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
(B) depicts or describes:
(i) patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality; or
(ii) patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital organs; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
------------------
我的「說法」並不是「本身沒有內容的法例」，而是「本身有例，只是有灰色地帶。並不是隨意的。」
在黑和白也是有分，也有灰色地帶，也不會令黑白成了沒有內容的字。
事實上很少法律是有「一個釘死的標準」的黑白分明。
重覆一次判詞
Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly "what is obscene", famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…ut I know it when I see it…"[1]
在美國也沒有「釘死的標準」。MILLER TEST 更確定了每區也有自己的準則，要視乎文化。
-----------
無論是美國還是英國，到最後仍是由法官分級。見Miller v. California不正正是一例?
---------------
23條不同，警權和法庭權力不同。
23條是怕警權
淫審條例是法庭權力
-------------
沒有第三機構制定標準之下?
淫審條例的「制定標準」是立法會立法權內。立法會不算「第三機構」? |
2010/7/2 15:52
| 
