|
Fortunately since Lawyers like Walters use a 14 step test regarding cp there is NOT a vague definition.
When we are given a set of questions to ask whether something is cp it makes it more definite and valid.
Such is said for obscene material quoted here.... when one says "I find that offense or obscene" it has to be applied here.
--------------The current definition of obscenity requires the application of a three-part test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the so-called "Miller Test," a jury from the jurisdiction where an obscenity charge is brought will decide whether the content in question is obscene by asking:
"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
-----------------------------
So if we are given the same template to sieve our decision regarding questionable teen content with, it becomes much easier to conclude what is, and what is NOT cp.
Much like a breathalizer test... a cop doesnt really have a way to tell HOW drunk you are, until he is given a "gauge" to judge the weight of your intoxication, just as when given a gauge to weigh the question of cp in said material.
|