|
indie, administration, drowned in sound uk, ernest ozuna, donal sutherland, incesttaboo, band, tupac shakurs picture, me against the world, theitalian job, actors, libertarian, angelina jolie, bill gates, larry charles, comedies & family ent.,
|
In Larkin v. rude Putnams' Sons that court held that because "some cities" writers and teachers of stature testified at the trial: that the alleged obscene matter "has merit and the rude testimony as a whole showed differences of opinion as to its value-it does not warrant suppression" and apparently it was not obscene as a matter of law. By this standard the performance which are the subject matter of this trail cannot be held to be obscene since indeed a number of critics, writers, publishers, ??? did testify that these performances rude did have critical merit thought there was the greatest diversity of opinion as to its critical values or indeed as to its comprehensivibility aside from its vulgarity. In the second very recent decision of the Court of Appeals, People v. Bookcase, Inc. it was held that a very recent statutory enactment designed to protect minors under eighteen years from the purveyors of pornography for profit of that "which exploits" is devoted to or is principally made up of descriptions of illicit sex or sexual immorality" namely Penal law 484B was unconstitutional as too vague for enforcement, the majority opinion used the words "so road and so obscene in its coverage as to abridge the constitutionally
|
