The Supreme Court's current definition of obscenity denies free-speech protection to materials lacking

The Supreme Court's current definition of obscenity denies free-speech protection to materials lacking

• A. Depict sexuality in a way that is degrading to its subjects
• B. Promote violence against women or children
• C. Lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
• D. Present a clear and present danger to community standards of decency

Answer: (C)

Under the current obscenity standard (the Miller test), material loses First Amendment protection if, taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This value-prong is the key: even explicit material can be protected if it has such value, as long as it also meets the other parts of the test (prurient appeal and patently offensive depiction). The other options describe aspects not used to determine obscenity today—degradation, violence, or a vague “danger” to decency aren’t the defining criterion.

Under the current obscenity standard (the Miller test), material loses First Amendment protection if, taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This value-prong is the key: even explicit material can be protected if it has such value, as long as it also meets the other parts of the test (prurient appeal and patently offensive depiction). The other options describe aspects not used to determine obscenity today—degradation, violence, or a vague “danger” to decency aren’t the defining criterion.