| OCR Text |
Show Obscene speech 'unconstitutional' Office of the Attorney General released re-leased additional opinion on obscenity prohibition pro-hibition and its enforcement in a state-pent state-pent Wednesday. The opinion, citing United States Supreme Su-preme Court precedents, decided that "obscene or lewd speech Is not within the area of constitutionality." Utah Code prohibits pro-hibits the singing or speaking of obscene or lewd songs; ballads, or "other obscene , lewd words in any public place or in the presence of other persons." The obscenity test revolves around "applying "ap-plying contemporary community standards" stand-ards" and when the material, "taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." ) prepared by Attorney General Vernon B. Roraney, Deputy Attorney General Robert Rob-ert B. Hansen and Assistant Attorney Gen eral John T. Eans, the statement answers the following four questions: -What standards can be applied by officers in determining obscene or lewd words? Does the "clear and present danger" doctrine, or other court rulings limit legal effect? Does Campus Security have power comparable to general police on campus' -What conditions prompt a campus arrest by state or city police if violation of state cr city laws is suspected? In attempting to overcome the difficulty of tests applied to obscenity, specifically the spoken word, the Supreme Court according ac-cording to the Attorney General's release "has indicated that the use of profane! indecent, or abusive remarks is not in any sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution." When answering the second question on the limiting legal effects of the "clear and present danger" test, the opinion stated that "statutes provide that one is guilty of a felony who advocates the necessity neces-sity or propriety of unlawful acts as a means to effect political or industrial change." Primarily, security of the state is at question in the above test. The Supreme Court has declared that abstract teaching "of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action . . ." The decision is the most recent and is recognized under Utah statutes. The third question was answered affirmatively. af-firmatively. Campus Security can make arrests and are imbued with powers possessed pos-sessed by sheriffs and city police. Fourthly, peace officers have no jurisdiction juris-diction outside their designated boundaries unless authorized by statute. However, jurisdictions frequently overlap, and this is the case with state institution security police and city and state police. The opinion defined the jurisdiction of city police, sheriffs, the liquor division, and state hghway patrol. The different law enforcement agencies, upon authorization, authoriza-tion, can act outside their boundaries in emergencies, or if specific duties permit them to make arrests outside of predefined territory. |
