Sublime

One major contribution to this movement came from Massachusetts federal judge Bailey Aldrich, who expanded Stanley’s protections in a later 1969 case. Whereas the Supreme Court had protected private possession of obscenity in an individual’s home, the question posed by Aldrich was, “How far does Stanley go?” In the judge’s view it extended to adult

Bernard E. Harcourt, Exposed: Desire and Disobedience in the Digital Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015),

The scanning, uploading and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and punishable

This coincides with one hypothesis about why sex-offender registries don’t seem to decrease recidivism by previously convicted offenders: If offenders lose confidence that they could ever form new relations that are not preconditioned by accurate knowledge of their crimes, or that it is worth the trouble to change if they’ll always be known as a

career, a disdain for sexually explicit material also consistently permeated his rhetoric. As far back as 1925 Hoover had begun compiling obscene material in a private FBI file, and in 1940 he had linked “smutty magazines” and “salacious literature” to sex crimes, telling the Reader’s Digest, “This trash must go!” Inspired by Kefauver’s

D’ailleurs, pour commettre son « crime », soit le téléchargement de millions – diable, de millions ! – de publications scientifiques appartenant – « appartenant », monsieur Swartz – à l’éditeur JSTOR, et ce, sur des serveurs en accès libre – oublions cela – au Massachusetts Institute of Technology – le si stratégique MIT – il a utilisé un

The court wrote, “If the only reason for a prosecution is to protect an adult against his own moral standards which do harm to no one else, it cannot be tolerated.”