Photo “Pie eating contest” by Flickr user penelopejonze. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Adam Serwer of The American Prospect brings up an interesting perspective on obscenity in music that seems pretty relevant to porn as well. It’s about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
In 1989, Elena Kagan filed an amicus brief arguing that 2 Live Crew’s album, As Nasty As They Wanna Be, which had been banned by a federal judge because of its sexual content, wasn’t obscene in part because no one could possibly be aroused by it. “Nasty does not physically excite anyone who hears it,” Kagan wrote, “much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response.” A higher court ultimately overturned the ban.
Serwer’s hook was that 2 Live Crew has endorsed Kagan’s nomination. My hook would be that for better or worse Kagan’s argument could have been used to defend the disgraceful “obscenity” prosecution and conviction of the equally Max Hardcore “porn” performer. Who, for all protestations notwithstanding amounted to so many Johnny Knoxville Jackass episodes plus genitals.
Update: Doh! I forgot about the photo of the gross-out pie-eating contest. I’d originally meant to tie in this Jezebel post, The New Pornography: Competitive Eating?, by Katy Kelleher. Sorry about that.
I don’t know. I’m kind of
Submitted by ozymandias (not verified) on Sat, 2010-07-10 12:08.I don’t know. I’m kind of annoyed at that amicus curae brief. Lots of the stuff I get off on is considered way nasty by most people; that doesn’t necessarily mean that my sexual response to them is “shameful and morbid” or nonexistent.
Although that’s probably the first time “ewwww, it’s so gross” has been used as an argument for the pro-free-speech side…