Legal Precedents on Obscenity Cases Quiz

Prurient interest in obscenity laws refers to a morbid, degrading, and unhealthy interest in sexually explicit material.

Miller v. California established the three-pronged test, considering community standards, prurient interest, and lack of artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

Roth v. United States clarified that obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, separating them from protected speech.

Stanley v. Georgia established the principle that obscenity laws cannot prohibit consenting adults from possessing or viewing obscene materials in the privacy of their own homes.

The 'community standard' in obscenity cases refers to a local standard, reflecting the values and sensibilities of the particular community.

The Supreme Court adopted the standard of contemporary community standards to determine obscenity in the Miller v. California case.

The requirement that obscene materials must be made by a commercial distributor is not one of the prongs of the Miller test.

Reno v. ACLU dealt with obscenity in relation to the internet, addressing the challenges of applying community standards to online content.

The 'variable obscenity' doctrine holds that obscenity is contextual and may be considered differently depending on the circumstances.