Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Gender Fluidity / Obscenity Laws
____________________________Gender Fluidity / Obscenity Laws
In today's electric climate of biology and gender, a sociological theory on how and what people are is a controversial one. Are you nature or nurture? Biology or psychology? Are we a product of our genetics or are we at the mercy of our own illusion?
Is there male and female? Or, is the human race bound by gender ideology: I am what I feel?
Social justice advocates, activists, and warriors will yell and scream about exploring our own sexuality even in the classroom. However, is this discussion of our sexual identities considered in the realm of the legal definition of obscenity?
1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, § 8 (1712), Mass.Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses.
In light of this history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. This phrasing did not prevent this Court from concluding that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, obscenity law was not as fully developed as libel law, but there is sufficiently contemporaneous evidence to show that obscenity, too, was outside the protection intended for speech and press.
So when does teaching about biology and psychology step into obscenity?
See also Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 U.S. 230, 242, where this Court said as to motion pictures:
. . . They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. . . .
(Emphasis added.)
We perceive no significant difference between the meaning of obscenity developed in the case law and the definition of the A.L.I., Model Penal Code, § 207.10(2) (Tent.Draft No. 6, 1957), viz.:
. . . A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters. . . .
Hasn't Gender Ideology gone from wholesome to the appeal to the morbid interest in nudity and sex?
We have children being taught that their bodies do not conform to their personalities. Children are being placed on harmful drugs, their minds twisted into delusion, and their sexual identities, nude construction used as political fodder all for the prurient interest for excitement and appeal to adults. Children are being taught sexuality beyond the customary limits of candor.
Meanwhile in Arizona:
Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1402 states that indecent exposure is committed whenever a person exposes recklessly either genitals or their anal region or in the case of women – areolas and nipples in front of another individual without considerations about a witness getting either alarmed or offended by the act.
Breast-feeding is, needless to say, excluded from the statute.
As far as the seriousness of the offense is concerned, people who commit indecent exposure in front of individuals aged 15 or younger should expect more serious penalties. Typically, indecent exposure is classified as a misdemeanor but if there are aggravating circumstances, a person may eventually be charged with a Class 3 felony.
On top of the state-wide regulations, Arizona cities may have individual local indecent exposure laws to target such behavior. Downtown Scottsdale, for example, has fines imposed on individuals found guilty of urinating in public. In Bullhead City, a person found guilty of solicitation by indecent exposure faces Class 3 misdemeanor charges.
Keep in mind that indecent exposure is different from engaging in a public sex act. Public sexual indecency is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1403 and the severity of the sanctions will once again depend on previous offenses and whether the act took place in front of a minor.
So what would be considered indecent exposure? When a grown man walks into a Target woman's bathroom and exposes his genitalia to a minor female child?
What would be considered indecent exposure? A grown man going into a woman's gym shower and changing area, getting naked in front of women, and then going for a workout?
There are serious concerns and legal questions about the limits of Gender Ideology when it comes to Indecent Exposure and Obscenity, not to mention Women's Rights and sexual privacy rights of other individuals.
In recent court cases, judges have dismissed the legitimate concerns over sexual privacy and the rights of other individuals to push Gender Ideology. These same courts and judges illegitimately place people's "feelings" over established laws pertaining to obscenity, lewd conduct, and indecent exposure. These social justice judges should be investigated for their unethical standards when laws are ignored for political correctness.
Should belief be used instead of established biological science? Should judges be allowed to redefine the sexes based on psychology, which goes against Title IX?
What are people teaching your children at school when you are at work?
Source: Cornell Law, AZ Criminal Defense Group
