This is a famous quote because it was used at one point. Yep, at one point how one defined obscenity was based off a similar opinion that they knew it when they saw it. Which meant to determine whether something was obscene or not meant they had to view the item. Sounds strange now, but is no longer the real standard due to the case of Miller v California. I won't ramble on about the case because I don't want to bore anyone. If you want to see more about the court case, check here: Miller Case Brief.
The reason I bring it up as also being a writer of romance/erotica, running an erotic contest and working for a newsletter on writing.com, I have come upon the topic a number of times. Usually it's an issue of erotic versus pornography. That conversation makes me want to go into a big rant about law. Feel bad for those that have had to listen to me, lol. Because to me really it's not an issue of erotica versus pornography because I don't even use the p word in the discussion. Because it's not whether a story is one or the other, the issue in the legal sense is whether the item is erotic or obscene. Why is that the issue?
Because, according to the Court and my years of classes studying the court case, it's a matter of whether the item in question is obscene or erotic because the first amendment protects erotic works but obscenity is not protected. They never ask if it's pornography or not. The question will be is it obscene or not.
It's pretty easy to make it through the Miller test. The one that all fall under is the 1st part where it has to involve the prurient interest. Basically that asks if it is sexual or not though the patently offensive part isn't as easy to figure out. However, what helps us writers is the list of acceptable reasons. This is where it says that if the work in question is artistic, scientific, political or literary, then it's erotic. If it's not one of those then it that is another mark towards obscene. The final feature has to do with community standards. Well, maybe not in that order exactly but you get the idea. But besides that point, if it fails the test then it's obscene and not protected speech. But erotic is protected under the First Amendment.
The interesting part I think, is the original content in question trying to defend itself as to whether it was acceptable or not, Miller, lost. The situation was considered obscene because what they did wrong was something simple. They were sending adult material to anybody, a mass mailing attempt of advertisement, which meant people who didn't want the material received it. Yeah, minor mistake on that part. Yet, the case helped work to define the legal standards for obscenity. Though I wonder how those email spams work. Hmm...
Bored yet?
Ever worry about writing and obscenity?
