I argued that the sticker in the Florida Constitution was not obscene, following the Supreme Court-approved definition of obscenity:
(10) “Pornography” means the state of the elements which:
(A) the average person, applying the values of the contemporary community, will be accepted as a whole, which appeals to the main interest;
(B) specially defined images of sexual behavior are presented or described here; And
(C) Taken as a whole, has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
This may not be constitutionally applicable to Dillon’s statement, because in order to be obscene, the expression “must be sensual in some important way” and evoke “sensual thoughts” or “sexual responses” and not just refer to sexual activity. Hard-core pornography can be obscene, especially if it is displayed in public; But references to such obscene oral sex are far from hard-core pornography.
Well, “the State Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Circuit finally determined that Webb had a valid defense of the allegations under the First Amendment and, as such, the charges against him were dropped.” But Judge Marcia Morales Howard determined that the matter was uncertain enough that the sheriff’s deputy who arrested Dillon was entitled to immunity:
Deputy English and Corporal Kerby thematically interpreted the sticker as an image of sex and believed the sticker violated Florida pornography laws. Although Webb denies that the sticker was actually obscene, in the interview he repeatedly acknowledged the sexual nature of his sticker, even though it was an attempt at humor, showing that an erotic message was more than conjecture – it could reasonably be seen as the main message being communicated. Indeed, others in the video have similarly directly and indirectly admitted that the sticker described a sexual act. Given this evidence, including Webb’s own statement, it is out of the question that knowledgeable rational officials such as Deputy English and Corporal Kirby could have thought that the sticker depicted a sexual act, and such [was arguably obscene].
The court noted that there is no inherent conflict between the purpose of making a smile with a web sticker and that it is obscene. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Webb’s suggestion that his intention to bring laughter stops any argument that sticker pornography was unsupported by case law.
If the sticker depicts a sexual act, it would be a protected speech under the First Amendment only if it had serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Although the web provides evidence that the phrase is widely used, such evidence does not mean that the phrase has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, See Luke Records (Rejecting the notion that the value of a work depends on acceptability; instead finding expert evidence that the music of a record contains oral traditions and music conferences whose cultural and political significance was in support of the third Miller Material). However, in such instances, Deputy English and Corporal Carby had to make a valuable decision about whether the sticker had such serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in its decision to arrest Webb. Significantly, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that price judgments are inherently difficult to review, which is why law enforcement officers are exempt from litigation if their value judgments are supported by reasonable probable cause …. Here, Deputy English and Corp. There is no serious value of the sticker under, was not unreasonable according to the situation. As such, the court finds reasonable officers in the same situation and can, with knowledge such as Deputy English and Corporal Carby, believe that the web sticker was obscene, an arrestable offense under Florida law.
[C]Eating Baker vs. Glover (MD Ala. 1991), Webb argued that the constitutionally protected nature of his speech was clearly established because the sticker contained only obscene, albeit vulgar language. However, this argument fails for two reasons. First, the decision at the district court level, such as a Unemployed, For the purpose of a proper immunity analysis is clearly insufficient to establish law. Instead, “only the decision of the United States Supreme Court, [the Eleventh Circuit], Or a state’s highest court may ‘clearly establish’ the law. “Second, Unemployed The decision is not particularly persuasive because it differs in important cases. Inside Unemployed, The plaintiff had a bumper sticker that read, “How is my driving? Call 1–800 – EAT S ***!” [The bumper sticker actually spelled out “SHIT.” -EV] … Although the defendants in this case went to great lengths to create such obscenity with sexual intercourse while taking stools, the trial court rejected the argument that it could be a face-to-face message that uses a single unholy word, such as carrying such an unusual appeal. See you. “In other words, Unemployed The court found that Baker’s “EAT S ***” bumper sticker was not of a pornographic nature, and therefore could not be an obscene expression outside the protection of the First Amendment. As recognized by the Supreme Court, obscene expressions that are not protected by the First Amendment “must be sensual in some important way” Cohen v. Californiaভাষা The language of the Baker bumper sticker, however, is different from the language displayed by the web Unemployed The decision failed to qualify as a “lawsuit with individual information”. A
Critically, the court does not have to determine whether the web sticker was indeed obscene in order to enforce it. And, the court does not make any such inquiry here. Rather, Webb’s understanding was to show that at the time of his arrest it was clearly established that his sticker was a constitutionally protected speech, i.e. not obscene. The point is to try to show that the web is lacking even in any case. In this record, the undisputed facts establish that the sticker could be interpreted by the party and others as a description of sexual activity. If interpreted to refer to any sexual act, the sticker is reasonably obscene and unprotected by the First Amendment. The reason for the lack of comparative case law and the obscene nature of the sticker is that the web’s argument that it had a clearly established right fails …
I don’t think that’s right; Pornography is limited to “hard-core pornography” and it’s hard for me to see how short pornographic descriptions of sex like “I eat ass” would fit. Still, Judge Howard wears the dress and I don’t.