Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:10:04.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrepancies between the Legal Code and Community Standards for Sex and Violence: An Empirical Challenge to Traditional Assumptions in Obscenity Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Daniel Linz ,
Edward Donnerstein ,
Bradley J. Shafer ,
Kenneth C. Land ,
Patricia L. McCall  and
Arthur C. Graesser
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Community standards for sexually explicit and violent depictions were measured using a representative sample of Western Tennessee residents. The residents were randomly assigned to view sexually explicit films charged in an obscenity case, violent materials, or control materials. The results showed that residents believe the sexually explicit films charged in the case did not appeal to a self-reported shameful, morbid, or unhealthy (prurient) interest in sex, and are not patently offensive. Community members indicated they would be substantially less accepting of the sexually explicit materials if they contained rape and bondage, and they showed virtually no acceptance of materials including children actors under the age of 18. Despite acceptance of sexually explicit films, there was no evidence that a majority of members of the community accepted violent “slasher” films. However, participants believed that the majority of others in the community tolerated the violent films they had viewed. These findings are discussed in light of an obscenity standard that presumes to take into account conventional morality and community opinion and the discrepancy between the obscenity code and community standards.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , 1995 , pp. 127 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by The Law and Society Association

References

References

Beckett, J. Steven, & Bell, Roderick A. (1979) “Community Standards: Admitting a Public Opinion Poll into Evidence in an Obscenity Case,” 84 (2) Case & Comment 18.Google Scholar
Berk, Richard A. (1983) “An Introduction to Sample Selection Bias in Sociological Data,” 48 American Sociological Rev. 386.Google Scholar
Berk, Richard A., & Subhash, C. Ray (1982) “Selection Biases in Sociological Data,” 11 Social Science Research 352.Google Scholar
Brigman, William E. (1978) “The Controversial Role of the Expert in Obscenity Litigation,” 7 Capital Univ. Law Rev. 519.Google Scholar
Bull, Benjamin W., Sears, Alan E., Taylor, Bruce A., & Munsil, Len L. (1985) The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case: A Guide for the Prosecuting Attorney. Phoenix, AZ: Citizens for Decency through Law, Inc.Google Scholar
Donnerstein, Edward, Linz, Daniel, & Penrod, Steven (1987) The Question of Pornography: Research Findings and Policy Implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glassman, Marc B. (1978) “Community Standards of Patent Offensiveness: Public Opinion Data and Obscenity Law,” 42 Public Opinion Q. 161.Google Scholar
Glynn, Robert J., Laird, Nan M., & Rubin, Donald B. (1986) “Selection Modeling versus Mixture Modeling with Nonignorable Nonresponse,” in Wainer 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. (1979) “Sample Selection Bias as Specification Error,” 47 Econometrica 153.Google Scholar
Radish, Mortimer R., & Kadish, Sanford H. (1973) Discretion to Disobey. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lamont, John (1973) “Public Opinion Polls and Survey Evidence in Obscenity Cases,” 15 Criminal Law Q. 135.Google Scholar
Land, Renneth C., & McCall, Patricia L. (1993) “Estimating the Effect of Nonignorable Nonresponse in Sample Surveys: An Application of Rubin's Bayesian Method to the Estimation of Community Standards for Obscenity,” 21 Sociological Methods & Research 291.Google Scholar
Linz, Daniel (1989) “Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials and Attitudes towards Rape: A Comparison of Study Results,” 26 J. of Sex Research 50.Google Scholar
Linz, Daniel, Donnerstein, Edward, Land, Kenneth, McCall, Patricia, Scott, Joseph, Shafer, Bradley, Klein, Lee, & Lance, Larry (1991) “Estimating Community Standards: The Use of Social Science Evidence in an Obscenity Prosecution,” 55 Public Opinion Q. 80.Google Scholar
Linz, Daniel, & Malamuth, Neil M. (1993) Pornography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, J. (1987) “Change in Film Ratings Favored: Parents Want More Details; Producers Want Status Quo,” Los Angeles Times, 23 Dec, Calendar, p. 1.Google Scholar
Mosher, D. L. (1989) “Threat to Sexual Freedom: Moralistic Intolerance Instills a Spiral of Silence,” 26 J. of Sex Research 492.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974) “Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion,” 24 J. of Communication 43.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984) The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinon—Our Social Skin. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press..Google Scholar
Robinson, Paul H., & Darley, John M. (1994) Justice, Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Rosensteil, Thomas (1993) “Views on TV Violence Reflect Generation Gap,” Los Angeles Times, 25 March, p. 2.Google Scholar
Rubin, David B. (1977) “Formalizing Subjective Notions about the Effect of Nonrespondents in Sample Surveys,” 72 J. of the American Statistical Association 538.Google Scholar
Rubin, David B. (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech (1987) “Conventional Morality and Judicial Standards,” 73 Virginia Law Rev. 339.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick (1976) The Law of Obscenity. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
Scott, Joseph, Eitle, David, & Skovron, Sandra (1990) “Obscenity and the Law: Is It Possible for a Jury to Apply Contemporary Community Standards in Determining Obscenity?” 14 Law & Human Behavior 139.Google Scholar
Stolzenberg, Ross M., & Relies, Daniel A. (1990) “Theory Testing in a World of Constrained Research Design: The Significance of Heckman's Censored Sampling Bias Correction for Nonexperimental Research,” 18 Sociological Methods & Research 395.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Justice (1986) Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: Final Report. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
Wainer, Howard (1986) Drawing Inferences from Self-selected Samples. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, Harry H. (1973) “Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication.” 83 Yale Law J. 221.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barbara J., Linz, Daniel, & Randall, Baraba (1990) “Applying Social Science Research to Film Ratings: A Shift from Offensiveness to Harmful Effects,” 34 J. of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 443.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1971) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Yang, Ni, & Linz, Daniel (1990) “Movie Ratings and the Content of Adult Videos: The Sex Violence Ratio,” 40 (2) J. of Communication 28.Google Scholar
Yankelovich Clancy Schulman. (1986) “Pornography: A Poll,” Time, 21 July, p. 22.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 7th Cir. (1985).Google Scholar
Asaff v. State, 799 S.W.2d 329 (1990).Google Scholar
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, 472 U.S. 491, 105 S.Ct. 2794, L.Ed. 2d 394 (1985).Google Scholar
City of Miami v. Florida Literary Distribution Corp., 486 S.2d 569, 572 (Fla. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 872 (1986).Google Scholar
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed. 2d 590 (1974).Google Scholar
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).Google Scholar
Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan v. California. 413 U.S. 115, 37 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuel Enterprises v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962).Google Scholar
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966).Google Scholar
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).Google Scholar
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987).Google Scholar
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).Google Scholar
Saliba v. State, 475 N.E. 2d 1181 (Ind. App. 2d 1985).Google Scholar
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).Google Scholar
Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Anderson, 322 N.C. 22, 366 S.E.2d 459 (1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 513 (1988).Google Scholar
State ex rel. Pizza v. Strope, 54 Ohio St. 3d 41, 44 Pa. 2, 560 N.E.2d 765 (1990).Google Scholar
State v. Wolfe, No. 87AP, slip op. (Ohio App. 22 Sept. 1987).Google Scholar
United States v. 2,200 Paperback Books, 565 F.2d 566, 570 (9th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
United States v. Ellwest Stereo Theaters of Memphis, No.89-20254 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Tenn. 1990).Google Scholar
United States v. Pryba, 900 F.Supp. 748, 759 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied 111 S.Ct. 305 (1990).Google Scholar
United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, 709 F.2d 132, 136–37 (2d Cir. 1983).Google Scholar