Obscene - Good and Evil

The interesting thing about the contradicting assertions is that both are really falsified in the episode of Law & Order, Obscene. I felt like the characters in play in the episode showed how an individual can be of a certain background, and still be a very ethical person. In the episode, there was a portrayal of two individuals that struck me. They were Carolyn Spencer and BJ Cameron.

Carolyn Spencer reflects the typical over controlling mother that advocates for strict enforcement of the law in every aspect of life. She is an over-protecting mother that is out to rid the world of any evil. She exemplifies the assertion, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtue of a good citizen.” Carolyn is the poster girl for pushing for a stern application of the laws of the US.

At the climax of the episode, Carolyn reverts all of her past reputation and becomes an evil person capable of committing one of the most violent crimes, murder. She, in fact, never murdered BJ Cameron, but I believe it was her intention to do so. This proved that even a person of great standing for many years is capable and willing to become a bad citizen in the eyes of the law, as well as go against all of her morality.

BJ Cameron is illustrated as the hell-raiser in society that portrays and influence irresponsibility and bad behavior. He is a controversial man with a bad reputation for inducing others to act in an immoral way. BJ exemplifies the second group in the quote, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” He seems to slip through the fingers of the authorities and society when it comes to his antics on the air.

Yet, BJ is portrayed as a very moral and good person at the end of the episode. He provides strong feedback to Danny Spencer for pleading guilty to the acts Danny caused earlier in the episode. He also abides by the law, contrary to Carolyn Spencer. He is simply a moral person that some imperfections, but nothing too severe to call him bad.

This episode portrays two characters that contradict a lot of what society views as good and bad. In my opinion, I think that this is a symbol that there is more to the title of good and bad than what we tend to think about it. In my opinion, Carolyn is the bad person because she is the one that is willing to act in a severe, violent way. BJ does have his imperfections, but he never breaks the law.

"Obscene"

As I was watching the Law & Order episode, I found it hard to pick a side in the "battle" between an over-bearing mother and a laissez faire radio host. Initially, I sided with Lewis Black's character, a radio host who, although overall slimy, followed regulations and laws to a T, and was a self-proclaimed champion of the first amendment. As the show progressed, despite the mother's high brow demeanor, I found myself more able to connect to her side of her son's tragic case. Although the radio host was in compliance with every single rule regarding what he could and could not say on his show, his violent phrases and misogynistic diction influenced thousands of adolescent boys just like Danny.

This supports Plato's statement that "bad people will find a way around the laws." The DJ, an adult, knew exactly how to follow the laws regarding the content of his shows-- as well as how to manipulate loop holes to his advantage. By never actually commanding his listeners to commit violent crimes of rape or murder, Black's character avoided charges of murder or other severe charges. He did, however, encourage violent behavior among his young fan base of teenage boys, inspiring the rape of the young teenage actress while claiming no responsibility whatsoever.

While the DJ's actions are obviously despicable, the mother's self-serving shooting of him are equally disgusting. Even if the shooting had been out of grief for her recently convicted son, her actions would still be inexcusable. She, too, has found a way around the laws by predicting the reaction of mothers just like her to her heinous crime. There is no doubt that she broke the law with her attempted murder and assault. Yet she knows that other over-protective and concerned mothers, as well as those who followed her son's trial who felt as if the DJ had horribly influenced the young man, will applaud her for taking matters into her own hands. The difference between her and the DJ, though, is that, technically, the DJ hadn't broken any laws, and she had.

To return to Plato's other statement, that "strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest values of a good citizen," this, also, has its short comings. Once again, Lewis Black, as a Howard Stern-like radio personality with  crude words and misogyny to boot, has followed every single law and regulation that the FCC and other organizations have placed upon his radio show. But Black's character is not the righteous and good citizen that Plato was describing; he is instead, as described by the vigilante mother, as something like an opposing parent who has the power of veto over everything she mandates. The DJ was an indomitable force in the minds of young boys. To the sexually frustrated, he was the liberator of derogatory diction towards the girls who wouldn't put out; to the social outcasts, he offered acceptance and popularity with the discovery of the undergarments of an underage child star; and to nice boys like Danny, he represented the very filth his mother banned him from-- after all, isn't every teenager going to hear what his mother says and do the opposite? Although a law abiding citizen, Black's character was a predator, feeding abnormal norms to impressionable children under the guise of free speech. While he did not deserve to be shot, he certainly was anything but a good citizen. 

Mill & Stephen on "Obscene"

In regards to the Law & Order episode “Obscene” John Stuart Mill would have likely sided with the shock jock BJ. A literal interpretation of Mill’s famous Harm Principle indicates that only those actions that cause direct harm to another person and/or their property constitute an action deserving prevention through legal means. Mill further clarifies his intentions by nothing that protecting one from damaging their own moral or physical health does not represent sufficient ground to create legislation. While Mill may have disagreed with what BJ said about Jessie, he would have been in support of BJ’s liberty to speak freely because his actions directly caused no harm. It was the conscious decision of Danny to sneak into Jessie’s dressing room and take advantage of her, not BJs. Danny should be the one punished for his crime; Furthermore, Carolyn should have been found guilty for shooting BJ. The mistrial is an affront to justice and liberty everywhere because it legitimates subjective moral vigilante action, which is a slippery slope to say the least.

James Fitzjames Stephen would have likely had a very different opinion on the matter than Mill’s. From reading an excerpt of his Liberty, Equality, Fraternity one sees that Stephen is much more concerned with law fostering societal good rather than individual liberty. He would want to legislate BJ’s ability to speak freely, and in doing so limit speech that society deems vulgar and incendiary. Stephen has a sense of legal moralism that underlies his philosophy and policy towards law. In his mind, law should be there to cultivate good citizens and a moral society, thus it should also punish actions that undermine society’s morality. Where Mill makes individual liberty paramount, Stephen makes societal good. To be fair, his condemnation of BJ does not mean justify Carolyn’s criminal actions. He may feel more sympathy for her than Mill, but in the end, she too committed a crime.

In my opinion, I think Mill’s stance on the subject is more valid. While Stephen’s intentions are laudable, I believe that moral issues are too subjective to legislate about unless they cause harm. Mill’s harm principle makes individuals directly responsible for their actions, while Stephen allows people to blame society. I think Carolyn should the blame for Danny’s actions, not BJ or the media or society. It is her responsibility as a mom to care for her child and instruct him on good morals. Maybe, if she had spent less time crusading for her agenda and more time being a parent, then Danny would not have made the unethical decision that he unfortunately did. In the end, Danny made his choice regardless of the law (rape is illegal after all); so, how could more law limiting free speech stop this type of crime in the future?

"Obscene" Episode

You can think (and write) about the issues in the episode in light of these related and contradictory claims “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen"* vs. "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws" (Plato)

As part of growing up and becoming full members of society, children are indoctrinated in basics of living in a community. Often this includes instilling the importance of rules alongside with the basic moral expectations of society.  By adulthood, not only does one follow the rules simply because they exist, but also because these rules are just an outward expression of society’s inner code of moral conduct. However, when society to places limits on itself is it for the protection of the status quo or for protection of the people? 

The two statements “a strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen” and “good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” highlight the forces behind being a law abiding citizen.  The episode we watched last week addressed the debate between society’s expectations of behavior and expectations of personal liberty by looking at freedom of expression, responsibility for ones actions, and a sort of greater good argument. The episode starts by introducing the rape of a young actress juxtaposition with a group of parents who believed that the girl, and others like her, was leading to the degradation of their societal values. While they claimed they were protecting their children, the actions of the leader of the group falls off the moral high ground over the course of the episode. When her son turns out to be the rapist of the actress, she places the blame not on her son for his actions but on the negative influence of a radio host. Instead of following the law to become a good citizen, she believes good citizens do not need the law to tell them how to act. As her son decides to take responsibility for his actions, she attempts to murder the radio host.  While it seems like this is an act of revenge, it is also a publicity stunt. 

Plato says that good people will act responsibly; this episode questions what makes a person a good person and also how do we judge responsibility? Both her and her son are supposedly good people, but they both broke the law and harmed others.  At the same time, both the actress and the host did not meet traditional moral expectations, yet they were law abiding citizens. As seen by this episode, while laws might restrict some freedoms, they give a foundation for behavior that can be applied fairly to all, as opposed to differing moralities. 

"Obscene" episode

I believe that the episode of Law and Order we viewed in class, "Obscene" can negate both contradictory quotes presented to us. One states that, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen", and the other that, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws".


The first quote implies that by simply observing and following the law exemplifies the moral excellence or inherent goodness of a person, assuming that a good citizen is indeed a good person. And that is simply false. As seen in the episode, BJ violated no law with his ranting on the radio, but was obviously far from virtuous, promoting promiscuity and even harm to another person. Another example that negates this quote would be a good, law-abiding citizen that has a pornography addiction. There is nothing legally wrong with their behavior, but I think we would all agree that there is something morally wrong with it. Therefore, simply observing and following the rules set out does not make you and essentially good person.


The second quote can be challenged by the mother's actions in the episode. At first, she was portrayed as a good person with high moral standards for herself, her family, and society as a whole. However, her need for these moral standards to be heard and addressed by society, she made a very immoral decision in hopes of publicizing her campaign. In her eyes, she did nothing wrong and probably justified her actions by saying they were for the greater good of society. The law is necessary, in this case, because what is a justifiable action for one person is not a moral action. Another possible example of this would be if somebody who worked for a large company embezzled a sum of money, but instead of keeping it for themselves donated it to the poor. The company is so large, that this sum of money doesn't hurt it, and the person sees themselves as a modern-day Robin Hood. But in fact, they are breaking the law, harm is committed, and they should be punished. Well-intentioned or not, good person or bad, the law exists for a reason, and that is to protect people and society as a whole. Morally good people can cause harm just as easily as morally corrupt people, depending on their justification for their actions.

"Obscene"

In the episode of Law and Order: SVU titled, “Obscene,” the detectives and lawyers encounter multiple situations that push ethical standards and the boundaries of the law.  When a teenage actress, Jesse, is raped in her trailer, the detectives immediately look to the trash-talking BJ Cameron radio show as a possible reason for the attack.  And from this this source, they uncover that Danny Spencer, another teen, committed the crime.  But, the situation isn’t so simple because it is Cameron that suggests the idea of the crime to his listeners.  So a dilemma is presented.  Who should be held accountable for the rape, the impressionable teenager or the man who gave him the idea?  And when Danny’s angered, anti-BJ Show mother, Carolyn Spencer, takes the law into her own hands by attempting to kill Cameron, another question arises: were her intentions ultimately good?

These situations can relate back to the quotes by Jefferson and Plato.  Plato said, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”  I believe BJ Cameron was a bad person.  While he fully utilized his right to freedom of speech, the things he said on his show were sometimes violent and frightening.  In this case, he used the law regarding his right to speak his mind to his advantage.  He twisted the law, expressing his own opinions and what he would like to do to Jesse, making an impression on kids that it might be the right thing to do.  Therefore, a good person like Danny figured that raping Jesse was right.  Ultimately this was all due to a bad person who managed to find his way around the law through his listeners.  This quote is accurate in regard to Cameron, but not as much in regard to Carolyn Spencer. 

Mrs. Spencer ultimately had good intentions.  She wanted to protect her children and other kids from the violent and inappropriate remarks Cameron was saying on his show to prevent actions like rape.  I am not saying it was right that she shot Cameron, but she was trying to prevent something else harmful from happening.  Therefore, in this case I think when Jefferson said “a strict observance of the law is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen,” he was not accurate; sometimes good people can justify breaking the law for a good reason, just as Carolyn Spencer did.

Plato vs. Jefferson

     Plato's quote, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws," applies to the episode "Obscene" in that the mother is an example of a bad person trying to find their way around the laws.  The mother in the episode believed she was a good person, standing up to protect young adults from media she believed was explicit and would lead to bad outcomes in the future.  However, she would represent the "bad people" in this quote because she used the law to get what she wanted.  She shot a man and then attempted to blame it on him saying that if he hadn't made her son do what he did, then she would not have had to shoot him.  The mother took the freedom of speech law to mean that she should be able to restrict someone's speech if it led to the harm of another.  This coincides with Stephen's stance that the only time you can limit somebody's liberty is if by doing so, you limit the harm of others.  The mother was in the wrong in this situation because she harmed someone else for practicing their rights.  The idea that good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly may only be supported in certain situations.  If there were no laws telling people what was right and what was wrong, how would the so called "good people" know what was the responsible thing to do or not?
     The second quote from Thomas Jefferson, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen," also leads back to the mother being a bad example of a good person or citizen.  If she was, in Jefferson's opinion, a "good citizen", then she would not have shot the DJ and broken the law in doing so.  She was trying to set things straight in her opinion; take down the man who she believed had helped ruin her son's life.  To contradict what Jefferson believes, perhaps the mother was being a good citizen when she decided to break the law and harm someone else.  She shot the DJ in order to prevent him from speaking his opinions and possibly leading others like her son into committing wrongful acts.  She was, in her mind, only trying to prevent future harm to others.  Does that make her a bad citizen or a brave and good one?  If somebody breaks the law in order to uphold values or defend others, what is it that says they are not being a good citizen?  If everyone was expected to follow the laws that are in place, how would we be the country or world we are today?  Laws have evolved greatly over time and it is because of people, like the mother, who stand up and argue against what they believe is wrong.  I am not saying that the First Amendment needs to be changed or that she was right in what she did, I just mean to bring perspective to the point she was trying to make as a mother and a citizen worried about the well-being of others.

Jefferson vs. Plato in "Obscene"

As Jefferson says, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen”. Based on this claim, I think Jefferson would characterize BJ as a good citizen and Danny and his mom as bad citizens. However, I do not agree with this idea. Danny confessed to his actions and held himself responsible to be punished for what he did. Although he did make a bad decision by breaking the law and hurting another person, he felt guilty and tried to do everything he could to make up for his actions. I do not think Danny is a bad citizen because he broke the law one time. Despite his mother’s wishes, he confessed guilty and went to jail without a fight. I think this shows that on a larger scale he is not the bad citizen; he simply made a bad decision from multiple influences around him. In contrast, Jefferson would characterize BJ as a good citizen because he did not break the law. Although he was exercising his free speech and did not break any laws, BJ was still hurting others around him. He made derogatory remarks about Jessie and influenced others who listened to his radio show to treat her in the same way that he does. As Danny’s mother believes, BJ may actually be hurting more people than Danny through his radio show just because of the remarks he makes, even without breaking any laws. Because of this, I do not think it is fair to characterize Danny as a bad citizen and BJ as a good citizen in this situation.

In contract to Jefferson’s views, Plato says, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the law”. Based on these ideas, I think Plato would consider Danny the good citizen and BJ the bad citizen. When only thinking about Danny’s actions after he broke the law, Danny displayed characteristics of a good citizen by apologizing and being responsible for his actions. He had the choice between following his mother’s wishes and pleading not guilty or to tell the truth. He took the initiative in himself to be responsible and do the right thing without a law telling him how to do it. In contrast, BJ stretched the limit of the law. He was able to say whatever he wanted on his radio show and not be punished for anything he said because he was exercising his free speech and could cover up anything he said simply by saying he was “joking”. Many bad people do break the law without worrying about if it is against the law or not, but there are also good people who make bad decision and bad people who get away with their actions.