Epstein Secrets

was a large dose of chutzpah. The leading case affirming the power of government to censor porn was Roth v. United States. But in a more recent case, Stanley v. Georgia, the court carved out an exception to the exception. A divided court ruled, in an opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall, that the state had

Court ruled only on [home] possession in the Stanley case,” but I argued that there was no real difference between possession and exhibition: Surely Stanley could not have been prosecuted under Justice Marshall’s decision if he were caught putting the film in the 8mm projector and showing the film to him

atements about blacks, gays, and foreigners to shouting fire in a crowded theater. I responded with my own op-ed, disputing the analogy. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, in arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t protect a parody of him having drunken sex with his mother, invoked the Holmes example: “Just as no pers

h respect to public distribution in the full sense, and that restricted distribution, adequately controlled, is no longer to be condemned. If a rich Stanley can view a film, or read a book, in his home, a poorer Stanley should be free to visit a protected theater or library. We see no reason for saying he

se we assume that the film is obscene by standards currently applied by the Massachusetts courts. He then went on to discuss the implications of the Stanley decision, which the prosecutor had argued was “irrelevant” to this case and which, at the beginning of my argument, thought was not relevant to movie

es have superimposed the heads of public figures on the bodies of others to demean or insult them. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that the Reverend Jerry Falwell could not sue Hustler Magazine for publishing a parody of the well known Campari Liqueur ads in which a celebrity described “his first time.” The ad

niversality” (see above) entered the parlance of physics in the context of the statistical mechanics of phase transitions near their critical points (Stanley, 1971; Stauffer, 1985; Yeomans, 1993) and has come to refer to the finite set of transitions and quantities common to nonlinear systems arising in_ t

n angry, and it frightened me. | never anticipated that my culturally enriched, intellectually sophisticated sons would be quoting Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. 123 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013623 The Freudian psychoanalyst of my younger days tried to write off these (to me) cataclysmic changes as manifestations o