Sorry to spam, but I have a couple questions. Forgive me if these sound really dumb, but I want to make sure that I'm absolutely clear before I go making any statements in my LJ. :D
According to the 2002 Supreme Court decision, "the Miller standard... requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U.S., at 24." That proof, which the Government is *required* to provide before anything can be declared obscene, can only be done by taking a particular piece of art to court?
Okay, so (possibly) given the above, would it be correct to say that "obscenity" laws can only work on a case-by-case basis, and that until a particular work of art is actually declared obscene in a court of law, it is neither illegal nor obscene, but, at most, *might* be illegal/obscene? You've implied that it's been a while since a full-blown obscenity trial -- would it be fair to state that getting something declared legally obscene is pretty tough? And would the existence of comparable material available through major outlets (like, say, Amazon) be a factor in that?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-04 05:50 pm (UTC)According to the 2002 Supreme Court decision, "the Miller standard... requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U.S., at 24." That proof, which the Government is *required* to provide before anything can be declared obscene, can only be done by taking a particular piece of art to court?
Okay, so (possibly) given the above, would it be correct to say that "obscenity" laws can only work on a case-by-case basis, and that until a particular work of art is actually declared obscene in a court of law, it is neither illegal nor obscene, but, at most, *might* be illegal/obscene? You've implied that it's been a while since a full-blown obscenity trial -- would it be fair to state that getting something declared legally obscene is pretty tough? And would the existence of comparable material available through major outlets (like, say, Amazon) be a factor in that?