Miller v. California (June 21, 1973): • Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex.... • Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law... • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value... (The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.) And then the state has to prove to a jury. Not that it shows nudity, because that's protected. Not that it shows sex, because that's protected. Not that it's political satire like Hustler magazine, ditto. But that it's really raunchy and dirty. And all with tax dollars. Thoughts? Comments?
