|
The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was famously used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in ''Jacobellis v. Ohio''.〔378 U.S. 184 (1964).〕 In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote: The expression became one of the most famous phrases in the entire history of the Supreme Court.〔Paul Gewirtz, "On 'I Know It When I See It'", ''Yale Law Journal'', Vol. 105, pp. 1023–1047 (1996)〕 Though "I know it when I see it" is widely cited as Stewart's test for "obscenity", he never used the word "obscenity" himself in his short concurrence. He only stated that he knows what fits the "shorthand description" of "hard-core pornography" when he sees it. Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard was praised as "realistic and gallant"〔Harry Kalven, Jr., ''A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America'', p. 40 (1988)〕 and an example of candor.〔Richard A. Posner, ''Law and Literature: A Misunderstood Relation'' p. 308 (1988)〕 ==History== The Supreme Court of the United States' rulings concerning obscenity in the public square have been unusually inconsistent. Though First Amendment free speech protections have always been taken into account, both Constitutional interpretationalists and originalists have limited this right to account for public sensibilities. Before ''Roth v. United States'' in 1957, common law rules stemming from the 1868 English case ''Regina v. Hicklin'' have articulated that anything which "deprave() and corrupt() those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was said to be obscene, and therefore banned.〔''Roth v. United States''. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 8 February 2012. ''Jacobellis v. Ohio''〔''Jacobellis v. Ohio''. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 8 February 2012. This was modified in ''Memoirs v. Massachusetts'' (1966), in which obscenity was defined as anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value. Still, however, this left the ultimate decision of what constituted obscenity up to the whim of the courts, and did not provide an easily applicable standard for review by the lower courts. This changed in 1973 with ''Miller v. California''. The Miller case established what came to be known as the Miller test, which clearly articulated that three criteria must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulations. The Court recognized the inherent risk in legislating what constitutes obscenity, and necessarily limited the scope of the criteria. The criteria were: #The average person, applying local community standards, looking at the work in its entirety, must find that it appeals to the prurient interest. #The work must describe or depict, in an obviously offensive way, sexual conduct, or excretory functions. #The work as a whole must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values". 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「I know it when I see it」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|