What is wrong with obscenity? Is its use immoral? In Roth v.
United States, the Supreme Court said that obscenity’s slight contribution to
truth was outweighed by the interests in order and morality. It did not explain
why it thought obscenity was immoral. One of the traditional arguments against
obscenity proceeds from the premise that only sex within marriage is moral and
that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation and the entertaining of
lustful thoughts, is always immoral. At a minimum, it is argued, obscenity
contributes to masturbation and lustful thoughts and even when produced under
non-coercive conditions, contributes to sex outside of marriage.
Whatever the merits of this argument, it is likely unpersuasive to millions of Americans. For example, already by 1974, 74% of American Catholics rejected the Vatican’s traditional teaching about sex before marriage. And only 28% of priests accepted the Vatican’s teaching on masturbation. If lay Catholics and priests reject the traditional argument despite church pressure to defer, I infer that the general population entertains comparable views. This does not show that the traditional argument is wrong (though I do think it overly rigid). Nor does it mean that those who reject the sharp lines of the traditional argument need to endorse the morality of obscenity. It does indicate the traditional argument has limited persuasive appeal. I will explore additional arguments in part II.
Comments