Today is an unfortunate day for the American people, because today we made a critically momentous mistake.
             On this day, our court gave away the most basic of our constitutional values, our fundamental liberty, to the refuge of a prejudiced jurisprudence of caution and doubt. More importantly, we gave away an important societal conviction; our belief in stasis and certainty, and in legal moralism.
             In the course of this trial, I have found myself in complete divergence with the opinion of the majority on various issues that were discussed. These take account of various factors, such as the inclusion of the terms pornography and obscenity under the dichotomy of constitutionally protected speech, the biased interpretation of decisional privacy and certain other factors with reference to the Indianapolis statuette banning pornography. As Mr. Justice Douglas pointed out in his dissent in Miller v. California 1 (1973) "...the Court has worked hard to define obscenity and concededly has failed".
             Invidious sexualization of women in graphic and explicit content directly and indirectly encourages unacceptable attitudes in workplace and pushes violence and misconduct elsewhere. As the ordinance appropriately held, trafficking in pornography, monetary coercion or psychological damage leads to brutal and sporadic incidents of rape and sexual misdemeanor. In its vigilante interest, Indianapolis therefore created a law that checks the root cause of these actions - graphically degrading pornography.
             There have been many socio-cultural and scientific reasons that favored the foundation of this harsh statuette. Scientific researches and studies have proved that graphic and violent sexual content affects behavioral patterns and may influence male and female sexual attitudes. In a 1989 study2 for instance, it was observed that a group that was exposed to porn rated marriage was less important of a family value than a group that was ex...