Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
“Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest.”
Easiest test of all three to satisfy.
presented by Mary C. White
**After passing the first 2 tests, it must satisfy the third part of the Miller test to be obscene and to lie outside the protections of the First Amendment
Issue. Whether the obscenity presented in this case is prohibited by the applicable state statute.
What is and is not protected.
Dissent. Dissenting opinions were offered by both Justices William Douglas and William Brennan.
Discussion. The Supreme Court found that, despite the guidelines that it established, it is nearly impossible to articulate a national obscenity standard.
They noted that each state should be free, through state statute, to construct obscenity laws that are representative of their communities.
“Whether the word, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
"Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.”
Third part forces judges to play the role of artistic or social critics and evaluate the aesthetic merit of works containing sexual content.
Sources:
The concepts of patently offensive and prurient interest vary according to community norms, which the law assumes are reflected in the attitudes of jurors.
http://kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_064_0000_article/021_064_0001_section/021_064_0001_k/