Posted by panchmaster from pool0564.cvx24-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (22.214.171.124) on Friday, October 18, 2002 at 10:27PM :
In Reply to: Obscenity posted by Jeff from ? (126.96.36.199) on Friday, October 18, 2002 at 12:28PM :
The definition of obscenity was largely confused until the Supreme Court laid out a new standard in the 1973 case Miller v. California.
The test has three parts and all three parts must be satisfied. The parts are laid out by Akdeniz (1996) as follows:
+++That means the person suing you has to prove EACH part to get a conviction...right? Two...or one...wont do.
1: the average person using contemporary moral standards finds the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
+++This seems to cover literary efforts...not just calling someone a prick. If I call someone a "cocksucker"...does that appeal to anyone's purient sense of anything...does it excite or titilate? And if the person does suck cocks...do I defame them by telling the truth about them? "Ms Beijing, can you tell the court please if you...you know". Who would want to answer that question? Does titilate titilate?
2: the work depicts or describes an offensive sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.
+++Didn't describe any such thing.
+++Can't see where I did that. Had I written a story about...ahem, someone...that had obscene things in it...maybe that would fit...but what if it didn't titilate? What if was dull and uninteresting? I mean judging by Lincoln's usual behavior...I'd say things were pretty dull in San Hose.
3: the work lacks, on a whole, serious literary artistic political or scientific value.
+++Well there I am as guilty as hell...there wasn't anything literary or scientific...maybe political, but that's all.
+++One out of three ain't bad.
-- signature .
Post a Followup