In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that expression is legally obscene only if it satisfies three elements. First, the material, taken as a whole, must appeal to the “prurient interest” (an excessive interest in sex). Second, it must depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by law. And third, the material must lack any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It’s a demanding standard.
If a work fails to meet even one of these three elements, the First Amendment protects it.
God, I can’t wait for them to hire someone with an art degree as an expert witness to testify on the artistic value of the image of Shrek jerking it
We can also get into the social and political commentary, as that is protected speech too. What does Shrek represent? Let’s get a film buff, historian and a political analyst on board to discuss.
God, I can’t wait for them to hire someone with an art degree as an expert witness to testify on the artistic value of the image of Shrek jerking it
It’s already politically significant. Instant fail right there.
We can also get into the social and political commentary, as that is protected speech too. What does Shrek represent? Let’s get a film buff, historian and a political analyst on board to discuss.