Nicole Grey

Mistee Arias

Mass Media Law

05/26/98

"That's # $ % & * @ * !"

Obscenity: act, utterances, or media deemed contrary to public standards of sexual morality. Obscene items are often called pornography. Because public standards vary, any definition of obscenity is relative to the time and place in which it is formulated.

In this very liberated world we live in, it is often difficult to determine what is considered obscene from what isn't. Just as "one man's trash is another man's treasure," what one person may consider obscene, someone else may view as a work of art. Obscenity is among the unprotected speeches in the constitution.

Obscenity was not always considered a public concern. The United States has had obscenity laws since 1842. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the social value of sexually explicit material must be judged from the standpoint of a "reasonable person" rather than by community standards.

In earlier times, obscenity was much harder to prove because the standards for obscenity were not clearly drawn. As time evolved, the standards for obscenity were more narrowly drawn. We move from Redrup v. New York, in which the court reversed three state convictions, to Miller v. California, from which the Miller Test was created. The case originated when Marvin Miller decided to conduct a mass mail campaign to sell "adult" material. Five of his brochures were sent to a Newport Beach, CA, Restaurant, and the recipients of this material complained to the police. Miller was then convicted of violating California obscenity law and appealed to the Supreme Court.

This case became the springboard for what we now know as the Miller Test. The Miller Test states that the following must be true in order for a work to be classified as obscene:

1. An average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient (having or easily susceptible to lascivious thoughts or desires.) interest.

2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, and the applicable state law specifically defines what descriptions are prohibited.

3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

In a more recent case, I'd like to touch briefly on the Barnes and Noble obscenity case. Barnes & Noble was indicted last November by a local grand jury for violating community standards in its suburban store in Nashville when they displayed "adult" books beneath the legally required five-and-half-ft. Height and without their covers being two-thirds hidden. Barnes & Noble was able to settle by agreeing to meet these terms in the future. The misdemeanor charges will be dismissed next year if there are no further violations of the law.

From what I read in this article, neither side was too pleased with the decision. The Christian conservatives in this case felt that Barnes and Noble was just given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again, which is essentially what occurred. Barnes and Noble on the other hand, feels that they were dealt a bad hand. In my opinion, I believe that Barnes and Noble should be more than satisfied that they were given such a break because they did indeed break the standard rule of that area by not meeting the requirements that were agreed upon in regards to obscene material.

In closing I feel that obscenity is rightfully unprotected. There is, however, no surefire way to prevent children from grabbing a hold of obscene material. Whether it be through TV or even through school, there is no way you can protect your child from being exposed to obscene material (you could lock them in a room until they're of age). For me, it all comes down to where your own personal morality lies. That is the only standard by which anyone can turn and say: "That's

# $%&*@* (obscene)!

Endnotes