Miller test
How often is this used? The amount of subjectivity necessary to interpret the "test" makes my head spin.
Was expecting this to be about prime numbers, but that's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Rabin_primali...
What a bunch of puritan bullshit. It’s not for any court to decide what is pretty and what is ugly. There should not be any sanctums, especially not in the legal system
Before the Miller test, standards for "obscenity" were arbitrary and varied greatly from place to place. A magazine that printed an excerpt from James Joyce's Ulysses was banned as obscene, while a few years later the book as a whole was allowed to be published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Book_Call...
Many of us like to think of the First Amendment as broadly protecting the right to say whatever you want, dating back to its enactment over 200 years ago, but that interpretation is much newer.
I was very surprised by this completely irrelevant part. Seems very unusual for Wikipedia.
> The Utah County region had often boasted of being one of the most socially conservative areas in the United States. However, researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material
[flagged]
While some of these terms have some case precedence, the issue of subjectivity frequently comes up when a case is appealed, and many, many elements are nullified on appeal review. For more in-depth analysis, see: https://www.firstamendment.com/obscenity-laws/
For an especially problematic issue see "Reason Number 3: Because You Don’t Know Whether You’re Guilty Until the Jury Renders Its Verdict"
And their whitepaper, https://www.firstamendment.com/articles/Nexus_Obscenity_in_t...
| The more troubling aspect to this defect in obscenity laws is the inability for law abiding Webmasters to steer clear of inadvertent violations of the law. It is an essential element of any fair criminal justice system that all laws must adequately advise citizens how to comply with them, and more importantly, how to avoid breaking them. Citizens should not be so uninformed that they avoid lawful conduct in order to keep from violating an inadequately defined law. For example, Congress has determined that no one should drive faster than 65 miles per hour, but it is perfectly fine-and in many cases citizens are encouraged-to drive right at the speed limit. Every driver understands his or her rights and obligations, and can easily comply with the law. Imagine the chaos and outcry if the speed limit were defined as “the highest speed measured in cubits per hour that the average person, if polled today, would find that a Unicorn could gallop, with a serous purpose as measured by a reasonable person in the community.” Imagine how slowly people would go; imagine how many tickets would be written for speeding. Imagine how long it would take for such an inane standard to be repealed.