...Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority opinion that the test of obscenity should be whether to "the average person, applying contemporary community...material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" (Roth v. United States 1957). In the 1973 Miller v. California case, Supreme Court Justice Warren E....

...definition of obscenity in Roth vs. United States: "whether to the average person, applying contemporary standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." D'Emilio points out that this standard differed from the Court's earlier approach to obscenity in two...

...someone or even express them verbally in public. Words and images are considered legally obscene if "to the average person, applying contemporary community...standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient (unusual sexual) interest." In some countries, criticizing the government...

...obscenity. Justice Brennan's test for obscenity found in Roth included several elements: "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material appeals to prurient interest." The Court wished to devise a test which, on the one hand, would not...

...a manner appealing to the prurient interest." is The Court stated that the test is "whether to tne average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest." In Miller v. California, ' '' the Supreme Court revised...

...well-established feature of the constitutional law about obscenity that something is obscene if "to the average person, applying contemporary community...taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." This formulation comes from the 1957 Roth case," and although the test of obscenity has changed in a number...

...morbid interest in sex." Finally, the court established the legal test of obscenity as "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community...material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." See Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957), 484, 487, 489. Although the Roth opinion clearly excluded...

...could be found legally obscene, and therefore outside the realm of constitutional protection, if "to the average person, applying contemporary community...the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests."9 Despite the apparent clarity of this ruling, the range of opinions offered in the Roth/Alberts...

...the various and famously unwieldy meanings of "obscene" is to hold that obscenity is as follows: "to the average person, applying contemporary community...the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests" (Roth v. US, 354 US 476, 1957, 489). Among the offensive materials seized by postal inspectors...

...all ideas having slightest redeeming social importance are protected; standard would be "whether to the average person applying contemporary community...standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest." Roth test was expanded to include materials that appeal...