Minichan

What?

@OP

Might want to edit that you spaz.

Delete this

The fuck is that supposed to mean? Who the fuck still collects porn?

@previous (E)
yeah wtf lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test, with the third prong being informally known by the initialism and mnemonic device "SLAPS" or the term "SLAPS test".

Supreme Court decision

Miller had based his appeal in California on Memoirs v. Massachusetts. The Court rejected that argument. The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment", especially that of hardcore pornography, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.

However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression", and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited." The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance ... have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]" and that obscenity was that which was "utterly without redeeming social importance".

The Miller decision vacated the jury verdict and remanded the case back to the California Superior Court.

I knew a guy who had a porn under his mattress but it got found

so I'm thinking, put gay porns under freinds mattresses, great prank

@previous (Sheila LaBoof)

Damlol. Won't work for friends who don't live with parents, tho.

@previous (E)
A better prank would be to put Mother son incest porn under the guys mattress.

@previous (I)

Agreed.

hey i bet some posters STILL hide theirs! zing! get it!

@previous (J)
I came in here to make that joke.

@previous (K)
Well, it's lame so be glad you didn't.

@previous (L)
I regret nothing.

@946,480 (K)
nice 8-)