Running across this (This actually came up in a Boston Legal episode as well, so go figure), I came across some interesting legal trivia, more specifically relating to the Roth v. United States case. It's a somewhat important case in First Amendment law, and it's a sweet interpretation too, from the wonderful Mr. Brennan:
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but more strictly defines what is considered "obscene".
Reading on, I was strangely confused that there were dissenting opinions on such a smart ruling. Turns out, the dissenters (Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas) argued the ruling didn't go far enough; they argued that the First protected all obscene material. Impressive, yes?
Additional trivia: Heterochromia is nifty.
Also, if you're interested, Slate is hiring general question answerers.
No comments:
Post a Comment