Originally Posted by Quentin

The government already has a definition of what is obscene -- it's the Miller test. It's vague, unclear, and worded in a way that is unhelpful to those trying to comply wut the standard, but it has been upheld by the court, again and again.

If you look at state and local obscenity laws, their definition of obscenity generally mirrors the Miller test almost exactly. This is not coincidence -- it is because anything more specific and exact than Miller generally gets shot down in court. The government cannot get *too* specific about what sex acts and types of depictions are patently illegal... I'm not qualified to do the constitutional law analysis to explain the reason why they cannot get more specific, but suffice to say that it isn't as simple as saying "no fisting."

Obscenity cases differ from other criminal cases in at least one important way: the nature of the crime and the statutory definition of "obscene" being what they are, there's little precedent that can be set as to what forms of depictions are patently illegal. Each case rises and falls on its own merits, and the "community standard" as determined by the jury in question.

That's kind of the whole point of Miller; each community decides for itself, on a case by case basis, what is or is not obscene. Sure, if the Tampa jury finds one way or the other, that could prove useful or harmful to one side or the other in future obscenity prosecutions within Tampa, but this jury's ruling has no real relevance to, say, a jury empaneled in Leeds, Alabama two years from now.

Also, as for California being "safe," tell that to Ira Isaacs, who is under indictment on obscenity charges in Los Angeles right now. Don't confuse the fact that paying porn actresses to perform is not considered prostitution under California law with the notion that producers in California are somehow safe from possible obscenity prosecution there.... totally different and separate issue.

- Q.