Quote:
Originally Posted by DAMNMAN
I don't even know how the written word can be judged as obscene under the constitution of the United States. Words are 100% percent covered in that Doc.
|
Unfortunately, this is not true.
The Miller test has been upheld as constitutional repeatedly by the courts, and stands as the legal definition of obscenity in the U.S., despite its being extremely vague -- and the Miller test does cover both depictions and descriptions.
It's true that there have been very few obscenity prosecutions targeting the written word since the early 1970's, but the statutory language that defines U.S. obscenity law makes it pretty clear that the government can indict text-only works as obscene... it's senseless to do it, IMO, but it's within the scope of the government's power (currently, at least), whether we like it or not.