[QUOTE=CousinNick;8723652]
What was the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity/pornography? "I know it when I see it," or some such thing?
No, that's also wrong.
There is no legal definition of pornography, and the term has no meaning in law whatsoever. There is,however, a definition or, at least, a test for obscenity. It was set out in a case called Miller v. California:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
Playboy is not obscene as a matter of law.
Yes, you're just sitting there reading a magazine. If I want to bring a copy of Big Jugs Unlimited on a plane and read it, is that OK?
Of course it's okay. Why would I, or anybody, care what you're reading? As I said, it may be one thing if you stand up on your seat and display the pictures to the rest of the plane. It's another, altogether, if you're just sitting in your seat reading it. Why do you think it is appropriate for anyone to tell me what I can or cannot read?
I hear the articles are quite informative.
It doesn't matter in the least why you're reading it. People read Playboy for the articles, for the jokes, and/or to look at pictures of pretty women. It's no one else's business why they are reading it.
Somewhere between moral absolutism and moral relativism is where we all must live.
And that non sequitur means exactly what in the context of this discussion? I didn't ask where on the continuum you find yourself. I asked why you think it's "common sense" to subscribe to your particular morality.