However, during the trial of this case, many events occurred that changed what would become the American legal system.

First, His Excellency Justice William Brennan continues to refuse to use the "Hicklin test" to check whether material is "obscene."

Second, "when an ordinary person determines that the overall theme of a work is for the purpose of inducing a lewd interest in accordance with the current standards of justice and common morality, the material can be considered "obscene". As a result, the practice of reviewing the material "without deviating from the overall context" was finalized.

As for the "Hicklin test", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not allowed because it greatly restricted freedom of speech and the press.

In addition, another judicial system that emerged from this case is that proceedings for "obscenity" should be directed against those who publish and receive the material, and not against the material itself.

The Court also emphasized that the First Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution also apply to historical documentary materials.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court declared that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment." That is, obscene material is not included in the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and of the press.

According to the judgment, items that are "to the general public" and "on the whole, the subject matter is capable of making sexual interest attractive" are obscene items; Pornographic materials that meet the "local community norms at the time" and "have some social value that can be used as compensation" are not obscene. This is the famous "Ross precedent".

Because the "Ross precedent" does not say what is meant by the "community guidelines".

During Earl Warren's tenure as Chief Justice, three heavyweight justices, Porter Stewart, Byron White, and Arthur Goldberg, argued that only "hardcore pornography" was exempt from the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

This criterion was also accepted by the Supreme Court.

However, it can be seen that this definition is still vague and has a huge room for ridicule.

It is not that the justices are creating ambiguity, but in fact they have a last resort, on the one hand, to protect the individual's right to freedom of expression, and on the other hand, to be vigilant against the poisonous effects of pornography on society.

Earl Warren was a liberal who advocated as much deregulation as possible, and the Roth case was the embodiment of his judicial philosophy.

In fact, Ross was later acquitted, but at the same time opened the door to pornography.

Mikhail Yulevich Berg points out that "[since then] publishers have begun to print works with impunity that are filled with a large number of sexual depictions, and the courts have begun to adopt a more emancipatory attitude towards sexual expression." ”

The context of the trial from "Ulysses" to "Roth" makes it clear that pornography should be considered as a whole, and the possibility of a book being banned in its entirety because of a single fruit photo or explicit 300-word description no longer exists.

The original intention of the justices was to protect freedom of speech as much as possible, so that the public could see more and better works.

However, the reality is ...... The populace did see more of the works......

As for the better......

Let's put it this way

In order to escort their giant yellow gadgets full of pornographic depictions from beginning to end, many booksellers simply printed a Bible in the preface or inserted half of the "Gettysburg Declaration" in the afterword, or gave a random copperplate portrait of the founding father in Monroe's fruit photo album to ensure that "it still has positive value as a whole."

There are also quite a few booksellers with a sense of humor who directly print the First Amendment on the title page, which is said to be an effective proof that this very pornographic and violent book is still worthy of merit, and thus circumvent government jurisdiction, after all, no one dares to say that the Constitution is useless......

In 1966, McMouth v. Massachusetts took this view to the extreme.

The case revolves around a classic yellow book called "Fanny Hill's Memoirs."

This book is juxtaposed with Shakespeare, Wilde, Dickens, and many others in the "Penguin Classics". Published in 1749 by the English writer John Cleland

But it was banned for nearly 150 years, and it was not until 1966 that the ban was overturned in McMouth v. Massachusetts.

Edward also read this book. To be honest, it's a bit of a British "Golden x Plum" meaning.

The language is beautiful, and he is good at using all kinds of figurative rhetoric, and it is difficult to find those words related to human organs.

However, it has written all kinds of "sexuality" imaginable, and it is a precious intangible cultural heritage of the English language and all mankind.

Since its publication, this book has been loved by people from all walks of life, especially Chaplin, who especially likes to recite some of the fragments in Papapa, to help "sex".

In this case, the judgment held that "all, even the slightest socially reparable thought, should be adequately protected [by the First Amendment]" and obscenity is those that "have no reparable social importance at all."

Pandora's box has been completely opened!

However, the Court also recognized the magnitude of pornography, acknowledging that "there is an inherent risk in regulating any form of expression" and that "care must be taken to limit national legislation that is intended to regulate obscene material".

In order to clarify this limitation, the courts established a set of three criteria to determine whether content should be subject to state control, and only if all three criteria were met at the same time that the work could be legally controlled, the United States finally had a common standard for judging pornography (a judicial tribute to the 200th anniversary of the founding of the country):

1.

whether the general public, when examined by contemporary social standards, will perceive the work as a whole to arouse people's interest;

2.

whether the work depicts or depicts sexual acts or excretory functions in objectionable manners as clearly defined by applicable state law (only sexual acts are mentioned in the case outline, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion);

3.

Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In this case, it was argued that "all, even the slightest socially reparable thought, should be adequately protected [by the First Amendment]" and obscenity was those that "had no reparable social importance at all."

These three seem to be more inexplicable.

But it's easy to understand when translated, 1, it can make people look hard, 2 is too much (for example, it's okay to walk chrysanthemums, but it's not okay to walk several people at the same time) 3 There is no decent content at all.

If these three are satisfied, it can be considered pornographic and is not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the government can inspect and fine money at any time.

"I'm a little bit unimpressed by this kind of thinking, although I respect the justices." Edward began to explain his thoughts to Rushberg in earnest, "I think this is actually against the intent of the law, and you can see that the justices are actually using a 'hedging' method to solve this problem. ”

"As long as this thing has a bit of a positive depiction, then no matter how disgusting the rest of the stuff is, the government can't control it...... I have personal reservations about this move. Of course, I think pornography should be regulated. But at the moment, a group of people are clinging to pornography, but they are not aware of the rampant problem of child pornography...... I'm angry! But I can't do anything about it! ”

"Ed, you're right. On this point, I think exactly the same thing as you. I wonder if we can push the ACLU to strengthen legislation in this area. Rustberg said with a smile that she liked this student very much, and although she was often careless, her performance on such major issues of right and wrong never disappointed.

"Good idea, but, Ruth, I guess you're going to be disappointed, and with any luck, we can enforce the law in the states of the East and West Coasts and in New England, as for the Midwest, and the former Confederate...... It seems to me that their senators are more like aristocrats under a hereditary system, who will only fight to the death for the power of a small group of people in parliament, turning a blind eye to the interests of the wider people...... The Southern Republic is simply a cancer of the United States......"

"Yes, Ruthberg" nodded, as a New Yorker, a Democrat, it is inevitable that he will not be used to the Southern Democrats.

"Well, look at it, all the things that embarrassed us in Dobrynin's interview were made by those red necks...... The federal government is really, wouldn't it be nice to let them go out on their own......" Edward began to run the train with his mouth full.

Gathering and collating the justices' views on pornography is not an easy task, and it involves going through a lot of files and looking up precedents.

In particular, when these justices wrote their judgments, they all longed for Shakespeare's soul possession, and the words were gorgeous and precise, in a sense, the justices were actually the first-class authors of contemporary America......

The verdicts are so richly written, and every sentence has a source, from Confucius to Aristotle, not to mention many more legal sages, which makes the work of reading very painful.

But Edward is probably the influence of the time-traveling, or his Jewish + Chinese brain melon is too good, all such judgments, as long as he has seen them, and then no matter how long it has been, he can repeat them.

When Rushberg found out about this, she fell in love with him even more.

Edward was also very happy about this, and since Rustberg had asked for it, he must have to pay some consideration......

In Edward's view, the case was almost a sure win.

There is a precedent of the "Ross case", and it is easy for the party to use this as a breakthrough point to convince the justices that the two cases are actually similar, except that there are differences in the technical aspects of the identification of pornographic materials.

However, since "Fanny Hill", a "century-old banned book" almost the same age as the United States, was lifted in 66, it is clear that the social environment is becoming more and more widespread about pornography.

Edward even wondered if Hefner had quietly given the nine old things bunny girls and rejuvenating drugs, otherwise he couldn't understand how these Daoist gentlemen could put up with these blatant GHS behaviors.

"I also think the justices are crazy...... Ruthberg's expression was subtle, "you know, on the one hand, I hope that the ACLU's Mueller case will win, after all, this is an organization that we can rely on, but on the other hand, as a woman, I always think that the overwhelming pornography is not a good phenomenon." ”

"I feel the same way... I sometimes wonder if this is a way for us to compete with the Russians. ”

"Competition?" Ruthberg's eyes widened, "This, you mean competition in this area?" ”

"Yes...... Edward shrugged, "Our founding value is freedom, which is also an important value for us to export to the outside world, and freedom includes this x freedom, I think you can understand this...... Many times, we think that people will enjoy more x freedom in capitalism like the United States, but in reality this is not the case, and the Russians seem to be more free in this regard than we are...... So, let go of these magazines, probably just to make a façade for the world to see......"

"The Russians are more liberal than us in this regard? ......" Ruthberg looked incredulous.

"I happened to be in this book," said Edward, pulling the book out of his handbag and tossing it to Rustberg, "turning to page 30......

"What kind of book is this?"

"A Soviet Travelogue of a Japanese Communist Party ...... He went with a pilgrimage mentality, and when he arrived in the Soviet Union, the Russians arranged for him to go to university, and his classmates of the Soviet Komsomol would have a collective life every weekend, and everyone would go camping in the countryside with tents, well, it was quiet in the grove, one-on-one ......"

This made the Japanese Communist youth very frustrated...... His illusions were shattered! Edward sighed, "There is an old Chinese saying that you don't know happiness when you are in happiness...... This kind of guy is really ......."

"I think you seem to yearn for this kind of life?" Ruthberg asked in a leisurely tone

"Nope! Absolutely nothing! How can you be so corrupt and depraved! Young people should study more, work more, and work more for their teachers......" After speaking, he posted it like kraft candy.

The book flew back into his arms, interrupting the rhythm of his work for the teacher......

"It's almost time, I have to go to class...... Rustberg packed up the papers, picked up his handbag and walked out, touching his face as he passed by, "Well, it's smooth, I like ......"

"Uh......" Edward stared blankly at the other party's back, not knowing what to say.

……

I thought that this case would be won very easily.

But it turned out that Dafan was included in the justices...... Oh, and the case of the Eye of Law is never simple.

Two weeks later, still in the office, Roseberg said with a complicated expression: "Ed, what a ...... The ACLU lost the case......"

"What?!" Someone jumped up, "Can this be lost?" Did those old immortals change sex? Or did Eisenhowerto dream of Earl Warren as a backboneman? After all, Ike famously said, 'Young girls have beautiful ankles, but not necessarily ...... knees.'"

"Yes. The justice's decision was unexpected," Lustberg said, arranging her hair, "and they have set a new standard in Ross jurisprudence for "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific significance in order to be protected by the First Amendment — which is known as the Miller Test, or the Miller Test."