[HN Gopher] Miller test
___________________________________________________________________
Miller test
Author : 1970-01-01
Score : 32 points
Date : 2023-03-22 18:10 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| sdrinf wrote:
| While some of these terms have some case precedence, the issue of
| subjectivity frequently comes up when a case is appealed, and
| many, many elements are nullified on appeal review. For more in-
| depth analysis, see: https://www.firstamendment.com/obscenity-
| laws/
|
| For an especially problematic issue see "Reason Number 3: Because
| You Don't Know Whether You're Guilty Until the Jury Renders Its
| Verdict"
|
| And their whitepaper,
| https://www.firstamendment.com/articles/Nexus_Obscenity_in_t...
|
| | The more troubling aspect to this defect in obscenity laws is
| the inability for law abiding Webmasters to steer clear of
| inadvertent violations of the law. It is an essential element of
| any fair criminal justice system that all laws must adequately
| advise citizens how to comply with them, and more importantly,
| how to avoid breaking them. Citizens should not be so uninformed
| that they avoid lawful conduct in order to keep from violating an
| inadequately defined law. For example, Congress has determined
| that no one should drive faster than 65 miles per hour, but it is
| perfectly fine-and in many cases citizens are encouraged-to drive
| right at the speed limit. Every driver understands his or her
| rights and obligations, and can easily comply with the law.
| Imagine the chaos and outcry if the speed limit were defined as
| "the highest speed measured in cubits per hour that the average
| person, if polled today, would find that a Unicorn could gallop,
| with a serous purpose as measured by a reasonable person in the
| community." Imagine how slowly people would go; imagine how many
| tickets would be written for speeding. Imagine how long it would
| take for such an inane standard to be repealed.
| iammjm wrote:
| What a bunch of puritan bullshit. It's not for any court to
| decide what is pretty and what is ugly. There should not be any
| sanctums, especially not in the legal system
| mikewarot wrote:
| [flagged]
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Fox News "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
| sexual conduct or excretory functions"? That's news (sorry) to
| me.
| fvold wrote:
| [flagged]
| dmtroyer wrote:
| How often is this used? The amount of subjectivity necessary to
| interpret the "test" makes my head spin.
| standardUser wrote:
| You think that's bad, look at the "I know it when I see it"
| ruling that was literally 6 old white men ruling that they
| could decide what was pornographic based on their own personal
| opinion.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
| kapp_in_life wrote:
| Important to note that in this case they weren't trying to
| define pornography but were stating that the film for the
| case in question was not pornographic and so Ohio couldn't
| infringe on the directors first amendment right to display
| the film.
|
| Your framing makes it seem like they decided something was
| pornographic, when what they were doing was protecting free
| speech.
|
| From your own source:
|
| >I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of
| material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand
| description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could
| never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I
| see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not
| that.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's not as subjective as it sounds in plain english. Many of
| these terms have established legal meanings and/or case law to
| support them
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Those established legal meanings (even the ones that are
| "objective" as that term is used in law [0]) are themselves
| subjective.
|
| [0] "objective" in legal standards often refers to a
| subjective standard where the decision-maker is not to apply
| their opinion on the overt rule, but to apply their opinion
| of what a "reasonable person" would opine about the overt
| rule.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Its used in principle whenever obscenity is cited as
| justification for a restriction on expression that is
| challenged.
|
| (However, in practice analogy to past uses, especially in
| courts whose precedent is binding, may be used in place of the
| test itself.)
| ajb wrote:
| Was expecting this to be about prime numbers, but that's
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Rabin_primali...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-23 23:01 UTC)