Originally Posted by
Affection
Unfortunately, you're (partially) mistaken. Upon reading the court decision, it appears that the pornography found was the underage variety.
I said it was child pornography. Please read more carefully.
You are also correct that it is "obscenity" that is outlawed and not "pornography."
However, most pornography meets the definition of "obscenity," and the federal government and many states do still outlaw it.
And you are mistaken. Very, very little pornography meets the definition of "obscenity," and
only obscenity may be held illegal without offending the First Amendment.
As best I know, the Supreme Court has not yet specifically stated that we have a constitutional right to look at obscene materials in our own homes.
First of all, there is no need to. If material is obscene AND illegal under applicable law, it is no different than violating any other law within your home, i.e. there is no right to engage in illegal activity. Second, it is the Fourth Amendment that is implicated, not the First.
The main reason why the SC has not yet made such a ruling is that virtually no one is prosecuted for having 18+ obscene materials.
No, it is because virtually no pornography is obscene. Child pornography is, technically, not obscenity, but is illegal because it cannot be produced without committing a crime.
That said, this guy's bags were inspected by a TSA agent and the TSA agent alleges that she was looking for explosives concealed within the pages (think: hollowed-out book). Assuming this to be true,
That's not true. You didn't read the opinion or, at least, not all of it:
The TSA officer’s testimony was simple and unwavering: She was required to open a certain number of bags; Appellant’s bag was the next randomly selected bag; she was required to thumb through the contents of the accordion-type file folder found in Appellant’s bag, under TSA protocol; and she saw the photographs as soon as she opened the folder. She immediately stopped the search and contacted a supervisor.
However, even she had leafed through the papers, because she was NOT specifically looking for evidence of a crime, but was only looking for TSA contraband, i.e. WEI, her discovery of the kiddie porn incident to the search is well within existing precedent for such material found during the administrative search.
the guy got what he deserved.
He did, indeed.
Now, if the TSA agent had no reason to believe it possible that there was a bomb between the pages, his rights were violated, but good luck proving that.
On the contrary, that was exactly what was proven in
Fofana.
Originally Posted by
Affection
You're right about one thing: Wikipedia is not an authority when it comes to law.