[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-427531-105":59,"doc-detail-427531-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","thought-control-part-ii","THOUGHT CONTROL - Part II","","A critical legal essay arguing that anti-obscenity legislation is ultimately aimed at controlling thought rather than stopping antisocial criminal conduct. Using the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Roth case, it examines how obscenity definitions focus on provoking lustful, prurient, and lascivious thoughts, and questions the constitutional implications. It further critiques the punishment of authors for potential reactions in readers, the difficulty of drawing boundaries between pornography and other writing, and the supposed causal link between speech and moral or behavioral harm.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":45,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/religion-spirituality/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/thought-control-part-ii/427531/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/thought-control-part-ii/427531.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Grenda","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the essay say is the true purpose of anti-obscenity legislation?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It argues the purpose is not to prevent antisocial criminal action, but to prohibit and control sexual thought.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the essay characterize the Supreme Court’s approach in the Roth case?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It claims the Roth decision endorses the idea that obscenity lies in material’s tendency to arouse lustful or lascivious thoughts, even when direct proof of action is lacking.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the essay criticize punishing the author for others’ thoughts?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It argues authors are held responsible not for their own thoughts, but for unpredictable feelings or thoughts readers might develop from a work.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},427531,1790993755,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":44,"category_name":45,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},7971474921005,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","u nLETTER°  \nVol.III,No.1  \nOctober 8,1973  \n# THOUGHT CONTROL\n\nPart II  \nWhat is the purpose of the anti-obscenity legislation?The present SupremeCourt decisions attempt to camouflage the issue by alleging that the purpose is toprotect the nation from\"antisocial\"(i.e.,criminal)actions.But the SupremeCourt decision in the Roth case is more candid:it states clearly and openly thatthe purpose is not the control of action,but the control of thought.  \nIn addition to the trial judge's definition of obscenity,the Roth decisionquotes with approval a definition given in an earlier case,which holds materialto be obscene if it has\"a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readersby inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires.\"  (Emphasis added byJustice Brennan.)  \nThis is an unequivocal declaration and an official endorsement of the tenetthat sex as such is evil.  \nObserve that that statement does not refer to some sorts of sexual aberra-tions or abuses;it does not refer to the conventional censure of extramaritalsex;it makes the sweeping declaration that any\"lustful,\"i.e.,sexual,desire(presumably,even toward one's spouse)constitutes depravity and corruption.  \nImnediately following that quotation,the decision mentions the objectionof those who hold that such rulings violate constitutional guarantees \"becauseconvictions may be had without proof either that obscene material will percepti-bly create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct,or will probablyinduce its recipients to such conduct.\"Justice Brennan disposes of this objec-tion by declaring that\"in light of our holding that obscenity is not [consti-tutionally]protected speech,\"it is unnecessary for the courts to consider suchissues.  In other words,the government's purpose in anti-obscenity cases is notto prohibit criminal conduct,but to prohibit thought -sexual thought.  \n\"However,\"the decision continues,\"sex and obscenity are not synonymous.Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to pru-rient interest\"-and adds a footnote:\"I.e.,material having a tendency to ex-cite lustful thoughts.\"The adjectives \"prurient,\"\"lustful,\"\"lascivious,\"\"lewd,\"etc.are repeated over and over again in court decisions in obscenitycases,as if these adjectives were clear,sufficient definitions.  But if youwant to make a linguistic experiment,look up the definitions of these adjec-tives in a good,unabridged dictionary.You will find yourself on a hopelesschase,being pushed from one word to another to another,in as bad an exampleof circularity as any which a class in freshman logic would teach you not to  \ncommit -and,buried somewhere along the way,as definition No.2 or 3,you willfind the words:\"sexual desire.\"  \nApparently,the Roth decision considers discussions of sex permissible(par-ticularly,as it points out,\"in art,literature and scientific works\"),but pro-hibited if they appeal to sexual interest or arouse sexual desire.I submit thata work of art or literature which deals with sex without appealing to such inter-est,is guilty of lousy craftsmanship.  \nThe attempt to prohibit thought -any kind of thought on any subject -isgrotesquely futile.It is worse than grotesque in this country:it means thatthe Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and of the press,but not free-dom of thought.  \nTo make matters still worse,the author of material claimed to be obscene isheld responsible and punished not for his own thoughts,but for the thoughts hiswork might arouse in others.  Who can tell what thouahts(or feelinas)a book-on any subject -would arouse in a reader?Logically,it is possible to tell whatthoughts a given book should arouse -if a reader is faultlessly logical.  How manysuch readers are there today?And,for that matter,how many faultlessly logicalauthors?In a Kantian-Hegelian age,logic is the most unfashionable discipline.When men are trained to use words as meaningless sounds,as emotional grunts,oras tools of deception,who can tell which b","cbCaivXAx4dpcf4m","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivXAx4dpcf4m","pdf",2003699,"English","# THOUGHT CONTROL\n## Part II\n## Purpose of anti-obscenity legislation\n## Definitions of obscenity and thought provocation\n## Constitution and freedom of thought","[{\"question\":\"What does the essay say is the true purpose of anti-obscenity legislation?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the purpose is not to prevent antisocial criminal action, but to prohibit and control sexual thought.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the essay characterize the Supreme Court’s approach in the Roth case?\",\"answer\":\"It claims the Roth decision endorses the idea that obscenity lies in material’s tendency to arouse lustful or lascivious thoughts, even when direct proof of action is lacking.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the essay criticize punishing the author for others’ thoughts?\",\"answer\":\"It argues authors are held responsible not for their own thoughts, but for unpredictable feelings or thoughts readers might develop from a work.\"}]","THOUGHT CONTROL - Part II | PDF",1790644133,13]