I need you opinion on this case of sexual harassment where a managing director of the defendant had hanging in his office a poster of fifty or so women on motorcycles naked; they had nothing on but red striped socks.
It was a large poster which anyone entering his office could not avoid seeing.
The Company saw nothing wrong with the poster. Their defense at trial was that "it was a work of art" and how could anybody be offended by a bona fide work of art?
Do you buy this "art" defense?
Can art be "pornography"? Is art by definition, art and not "pornography"?
Where do you draw the line between appropriate art and pornography?
If the same poster was hanging in a woman's office would it make any difference?
The supreme court has had major problems with defining pornography but they have come up with some guidelines to define what they see as obscene and thus we could basically determine that it would not depict art.
In Miller v. California in 1973, a three-part test was determined:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth ...