flipbeter

jesslared

ohbutwait_ily

threthiel9

burr86

Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.
Because it allows for community standards and demands "serious" value, some worried that this test would make it easier to suppress speech and expression. They pointed out that it replaced a stricter test asking whether the speech or expression was "utterly without redeeming social value"--a much tougher standard than "serious" value. As used, however, the test generally makes it difficult to outlaw any form of expression. Much pornography has been successfully argued to have some artistic or literary value ... The advent of the Internet has made this definition more difficult to maintain: as material published on a web server in one place can be read by a person residing anywhere else, there is a question as to which jurisdiction should apply.

• Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

The third condition is also known as the (S)LAPS test ((Serious) Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific). The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

...focus on the entire work when judging obscenity rather than isolated passages. In 1957, the Roth v. United States case answered the question about First Amendment protection of obscenity. Justice William Brennan claimed that sexual materials that are considered prurient and are not socially important are not protected under the First Amendment and are, therefore, open to censorship. However, the vague wording about social importance led to confusion in future obscenity court cases.

We will return to your normally scheduled porn after this short message.

ETA: Okay, public now. Sorry about that. I meant this to be public all along. *more headdeskery*

Have calmed down a bit. After reading through their clarifications, have come to the following (assumed) conclusions. I asked about them - haven't gotten an answer yet. But I'm pretty sure that this is what stands as fact now for some pretty good guidelines to follow:

• Writing smut about a minor, because she just incidentally happens to be that age, with the porn not being just *because* she's that age - because you just like the character - is fine. Don't exult the age in a sexual context. People may be underage, but, you shouldn't flaunt that. Write for the sake of the character, not their age.
• Given that it would actually take someone to report you for you to get banninated, I'm guessing an f-lock should do the trick if you're paranoid *raises hand* and trust your f-list.
• Just because X thinks your story isn't of literary merit and is really just all about the porn with that minor over yonder because he/she is a minor... lj is not going to just put a giant *DELETE* stamp over you. They're probably going to be more careful after what happened with Strikeout and give fair warnings and all of that.

I have that up for clarification over at that post at the moment, so we'll see if I have to go in and edit this again to confirm/deny that my assumptions are true. XD

ETA 2: If you don't know what Strikethrough '07 was, look here. I have covered it all in a footnote comment HERE for those who were too afraid of eljay in the good old days to sit and wait to see what happens!