We have another story showing the moral decline of pandas.  Chinese officials are showing five-year-old Ke Lin and her partner Yongyong long panda pornography movies to try to get them in the amorous mood.  Ke Lin had been shunning her mater.  However, in a direct clinical confirmation of the impact of porn on the young mind, Ke Lin watched the movies now she is a character right out of the movie “Boogie Nights.”

My question is why this is legal for pandas but not people. The description of the films would seem to clearly qualify as “obscene” under governing standards. Like United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), I know obscenity when I see it. This is a film that shows only two pandas going at it with a high degree of exposure and no intellectual content (let alone any sense of direction, character development, or scenery).

The Miller test from the 1973 case Miller v. California lays out three prongs of analysis.

Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Clearly, it is the very appeal to prurient interests that is being sought by these panda pervs who want to see some actual panda lovemaking in response to the film.

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. The depiction could not be more patent and exposes. There is nothing but close up shots of panda parts and sexual relations.

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. There is clearly a lack of serious literary or artistic or political values. Unlike past porn films that would have a character suddenly read a line of Shakespeare to add such content, these pandas are shown simply grinding away. Of course, the Chinese could claim the film has “scientific value” but any perv in a lab could make such a claim.

Either the pandas are porn pervs or the Miller case is once again shown to be one of the dumbest decisions of all time. Indeed, I have long stated that Stewart’s oft-quoted line is one of the most moronic utterances ever made by a justice on the Supreme Court. It suggests that more arbitrary basis for holding some work obscene while others merely pornographic.

As for the pandas, their moral decline matches their population decline. Indeed, I expect the Tea Party and Sarah Palin to take up this issue without delay. This is the most direct evidence of a link between the collapse of a population and immoral social norms.

Source: Telegraph