I do not think that the Miller Test was meant to make censorship easier. On the contrary, censorship grew more difficult as a result of the added third criteria following the court case, Miller v. California (1973). The criteria for testing obscenity grew stricter over the course of the past century. Initially, in Regina v. Hicklin (1868), the Hicklin Test stated that if "the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" then the work in question is said to be obscene and thus censored. This made censorship easier, because anybody could have objections to works that they feel could be obscene. It was a simple yes or no answer, and once a decision has been made, was not open to debate .
The Miller Test basically kept the first two criteria from the previous Roth Test from the court case, Roth v. United States, but added the third criteria: "the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The third criteria was extremely important because many critics have different definitions of what constituted literary or artistic. You couldn't automatically censor something unless you have a consensus among the majority.
0 comments:
Post a Comment