The US adopted Hicklin rule/test/standard on obscenity through the Comstock Act of 1873 until 1957:
QUOTE
1857
all material tending "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary merit.
When it was abandoned in favor of the Roth test:
QUOTE
1957
defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" to the "average person, applying contemporary community standards."
Which was later edited into the current 3-pronged Miller test:
QUOTE
1973
- whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
- whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Also FCC v. Pacifica (1978) established that due to the "pervasive nature of broadcasting" it had reduced First Amendment rights. And though not obscene, indecent material can be (and is) subject to restriction. It left the defining of "indecency" up to the FCC. (Think of the children!)
I hope I passed my test ;_;
QUOTE(Shiokazu @ Mar 23 2013, 06:15 PM)
suddenly you feel something cold on your face, and a salty bitter taste on your mouth, you check what it is.
you're crying.
No, it's
coffee you've left to get cold. So you grimace, chug it down, and get back to living.