Grant, your question immediately reminded me of the famous response given by Justice Potter Stewart back in 1964, in the Supreme Court ruling on [i:fe40cb85fd]Jacobellis v Ohio[/i:fe40cb85fd]:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But [i:fe40cb85fd]I know it when I see it[/i:fe40cb85fd], and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
Back a few years ago we lost a staff person over a picture that was displayed in a hallway of our church. It was part of a series of photographs taken of street life in Bangkok, Thailand. The offending photograph showed a young woman, bare breasted, having her body painted by a local artist. Where I saw the rich beauty of a culture that I know little about, she saw a pornographic photo that should not be displayed in a church.
Matt
Jun 19 2007
09:44 am
Grant, your question immediately reminded me of the famous response given by Justice Potter Stewart back in 1964, in the Supreme Court ruling on [i:fe40cb85fd]Jacobellis v Ohio[/i:fe40cb85fd]:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But [i:fe40cb85fd]I know it when I see it[/i:fe40cb85fd], and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
Back a few years ago we lost a staff person over a picture that was displayed in a hallway of our church. It was part of a series of photographs taken of street life in Bangkok, Thailand. The offending photograph showed a young woman, bare breasted, having her body painted by a local artist. Where I saw the rich beauty of a culture that I know little about, she saw a pornographic photo that should not be displayed in a church.