View Single Post
Old 04-01-2004, 01:36 PM  
emmanuelle
Confirmed User
 
emmanuelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oh Canada!
Posts: 3,662
The 1973 landmark case, Miller v. California, supra (as modified by two subsequent cases) established a three-pronged test for determining whether a "work" (i.e., material or performance) is obscene and, therefore, unprotected by the First Amendment. To be obscene, a judge and/or a jury must determine:
1. That the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; AND
2. That the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; AND
3. That a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.


Therefore- most of you people using popular movie examples are comparing apples to oranges. A gory movie is not judged obscene, because the offensive scene is only one part of a collective work.

This photoset however, is entirely comprised of images that lack serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.
emmanuelle is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote