Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

I see where you're going, and in order to understand this better, you need to read one of the ugliest obscenity cases I know, maybe the worst, Hamling. http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/hamling.html

Publisher took a government commission report on obscenity, printed by the US Government Printing Office and added tons of porn, reissuing it as the "Illustrated" Report of the Presidential Commission on Pornography, and send out circulars to advertise it via the mail. Lots of hard core images in that brochure, and on the back, a legitimate and strong political statement about that report and why its findings were being ignored. A genuine political statement along with an illustration of the book cover. He was indicted for numerous violations of obscenity law. The jury convicted on obscenity for the advertising brochure but could not reach an agreement on the Illustrated Report itself. On appeal, the convictions for the brochure were affirmed. Hamling was actually tried before the Miller case was decided, and earlier law, arguably more protective of defendant-publishers was applied to determine obscenity. Take a look at the text of the strong political argument set out in that brochure as set out in the opinion. It was not enough for that jury.