Spectacles of Agency and Desire: Dance Histories and the Burlesque Stage Main Menu

Censorship Debate

5977
The censorship debate focuses on our First Amendment freedom of speech rights. Is the government allowed to regulate what we are watching, showing, selling, etc. or is that against our freedom of speech? In our government's history there are laws that have been created to censor obscene matter and court cases that determine what obscene matter can be censored. Burlesque has been caught in the crossfire of this debate. Some feel that burlesque is considered obscene while others feel that it is an art form and way to express freedom of speech.

Obscenity laws are often brought up in response to burlesque. These laws make it illegal to engage in the business of selling obscene matter. It is very vague what qualifies as "obscene matter" but burlesque is said to sometimes fit the description. Many times burlesque performers or managers have been arrested and sometimes venues were even shut down in the past. Police have been a part of burlesque’s history and the censorship of burlesque materials will continue to be debated into the future. 
 
In the court case Jacobellis v. Ohio, a court decided how to determine what is considered obscene. This court case tries to define what qualifies as "obscene" and gives knowledge to what breaks the laws and what is considered okay. Justice Stewart concurred with the decision stating, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." (Jacobellis v. Ohio). The Supreme Court in 1964 in the Jacobellis v. Ohio case determined that a threshold test was needed to determine obscenity. This test, named, "I know It When I See It" allows the government lots of control in the censorship of obscene information. This vagueness of the Supreme Court case allows the authorities absolute control on deciding what can be considered obscene. 
 
There has also been burlesque shows banned and venues shut down for running burlesque performances. Due to censorship and the use of public space, the government has been able to support their decisions to keep burlesque from certain places, theaters, etc.
 
One example, Susan Press, a labor politician, banned a burlesque show from being performed in a public venue. She states, "The portrayal of women in this type of show is something we fought against a generation ago," and also that "my committee took the view that a burlesque entertainment wasn't an appropriate use of a public building, and it would cause offence to a significant part of the community." (Hess). Many Burlesque performers were outraged that their art form was able to be censored and feel that this is just the beginning of what could become larger censorship. Women against burlesque are able to use obscenity laws and the government’s control over public space to censor burlesque. In many ways, the law and government is on the anti-burlesque women’s side of the argument. 

 
Works Cited:

"Jacobellis v. Ohio." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

Hess, John. "New Burlesque: Is It Empowering or Demeaning to Women? - BBC News." BBC News. N.p., 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.

This page has paths:

  1. Women Watching Women Harmony Bench

This page has tags:

  1. Margaret Morrison Margaret Morrison
  2. Empowering or Demeaning? Rachel Sigrid Freeburg
  3. The Policing of Burlesque Rachel Sigrid Freeburg