In miller v. california, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973), the Supreme Court concluded that a work is obscene and can be regulated if it appeals to a viewer’s prurient interest; portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Court further ruled that interpretations of this definition may vary across the United States and that communities may apply their own local standards to determine obscenity.

Not that you can’t find scientists and some kind of community who support ID, it’s just that the prevailing attitudes toward ID aren’t all that positive.

Claiming wrongful censorship is a slippery slope, somehow I don’t think the claim in this case will have legs in the courts. Maybe a claim of attempted censorship would work, still I don’t know that there’s a legal precedent for something like that. Anyone know?

Also, “The California Science Center is a public-private partnership between the State of California and the not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation” (quote from the CSC website), so there is no Smithsonian component to the partnership.

Here’s a pretty good legal definition of censorship:

“Censorship: the cyclical suppression, banning, expurgation, or editing by an individual, institution, group or government that enforce or influence its decision against members of the public — of any written or pictorial materials which that individual, institution, group or government deems obscene and “utterly” without redeeming social value,” as determined by “contemporary community standards.”
–Chuck Stone, Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina

Unless the title is not representative of the film, I think we’re done here. The ‘representatives’ they have sent along spell it out pretty well too.

The film is Darwin’s Dilemma and I trust that people will see it before they make unsubstantiated claims about it, or the people in it. There are clips, and an FAQ and other information at http://www.darwinsdilemma.org.

leading intelligent design scientist Dr. Jonathan Wells

BWAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA! *gasp* AAAAAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!

How did the Smithsonian Institute get involved in the sham?

The Smithsonian is only indirectly involved, apparently the California Science Center has some link with them. I assume that the CSC rents out its facilities in the same manner as the Smithsonian did several years ago when an ID film got show at its DC facility, and same manner as the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History last month. I.e. they are renting space for cash, and do not sponsor or approve the content.

The simple answer is they didn’t. There are dozens of Smithsonian Affiliates across the country. The affiliation lets smaller museums share resources with the Smithsonian. The DI is deceptively using that affiliation to make it seem like the California Science Center is is the west coast outpost of the main museum in DC.

That says it all. Lies and obfuscations will abound.

How did the Smithsonian Institute get involved in the sham?