The Supreme Court Standard of Obscenity Evolution since 1950

He thinks that this term has no special meaning and can take any form depending on the situation. Pornography is another problem that is controversial in this situation. Because some people think that there is a possibility of affecting depending on the kind of people to reach, this material is the subject of discussion. This document needs to be distinguished to show that the ideology or hardcore porn characteristics are different. In this case you need to keep ethical values ​​and do the right and the desired for the people of the community.

Since the "obscene" is not defined in the federal regulations, the court must apply the obscenity test prescribed by the Supreme Court of California Miller Miller 9 Mirror is an obscene article when seeing local "community standards" . '2 This ambiguous standard for defining obscene articles encourages selective and arbitrary prosecution under federal obscene regulations 2. In a recent case, the United States v. Thomas incident 22, the Ministry of Justice infringed the federal ban on interstate traffic jamming acts appealing the card with California Milpitas and his wife Robert. "The incident is not California but the jurisdiction in which the information was received, according to the Tennessee State Mirror's" Community Standards "analysis, the government won the jury verdict against Thomas and 24 Robert and Karin Thomas had 377 months Sentenced to imprisonment, their computer information system was forfeited by the government.

Prosecution of obscene pace cyberspace: Miller test can not "No [go where you go] [pornography] J. Todmet Kraft

In the 1970s and 1980s, the US Supreme Court made a series of ground-breaking decisions on obscenity and child pornography. In 1973, the court ruled that Miller v. California (1972) set crime criteria for obscenity. In Miller's fourth trial, in order to blame the work as "absent", as a whole, it has to be sure to depict sexual behavior and attract interests in a clearly unpleasant way measured by community standards not. Regardless of literature, art, politics or science, serious social value

Obscene is a legal term for what we usually call pornographic content. For decades, the Supreme Court has discussed whether obscene materials are protected by the First Revised Constitution, or whether state and local authorities can prosecute pornographic distributors. This problem was solved in the 1973 Supreme Court case involving a man named Marvin Miller, who operated a mail order business and was convicted of distribution of adult-oriented data in California. The Supreme Court upheld his belief that the obscenity act was not protected by the Constitution and therefore it was judged that it could be banned by state governments and local governments. However, the court judged that states and local governments must conduct rigorous tests to determine whether pornographic materials are "obscene". There are three parts to the test.

Freedom of speech, censorship, problems other than government, review of voluntary restrictions, self-censorship