Talk:Ginsberg v. New York

Missing a key part of the ruling mentioned in the majority opinion
One of the arguments made against the law in question in Ginsberg v. New York was that the state had not proven that the pornographic magazines in question (or for that matter porn in general) were harmful to minors. The supreme court stated as port of the ruling that the state need not prove conclusively that porn causes harm to minors but merely demonstrate that it might cause harm to minors. They were not issuing an open license to classify any material the state wanted as "harmful to minors" in order to ban minor's access to it if there was not legitimate argument such material was possibly harmful to minors but explicit material was fair game even absent proof of harm to minors. This was a key part of the ruling since it established a lower threshold for banning/limiting access/sale of certain material to minors on the grounds it might be harmful, whereas such a prohibitions on adults had been struck down except in cases where the material meets the definition of obscene (define by the Supreme Court in 1974's Miller v. California as a)Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, b) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law, c)) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.). Since then the courts have upheld laws restricting minors access to indecent material without requiring proof of harm so long as such laws don't unfairly infringe of adult's access to non-obscene indecent material. Someone should add something about this key point. I did once read a legal article discussing this point but can't recall where a read it from to use it as source. I suggest someone with better legal research skills then I see if they can find some good sources on this point and add a paragraph in this part of the ruling. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Idiomatic?
I'm sure it's none of my business, but does "He was prosecuted from two informants who testified that he personally sold two 16-year-old boys the magazines containing pornographic images of women, both called "Sir", and, "Mr" Annual. It was insisted upon by their parents to buy them so they could lay the grounds for persecution." make sense? 109.148.77.164 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)