This article traces the evolution of the legal tests of obscenity from the Hicklin Test to the Average Man Test. It discusses the evolution of the tests in the context of relevant American cases. 

This article argues that causation of moral harm cannot be the basis for obscenity law because it is too vague and its application is too contestable to be a rule of law. It concludes that obscenity law is an unsuitable solution for the problem it seeks to address (prevention of moral harm) and should thus be abandoned

This article examines the rationale for the outlawing of dissemination of sexually explicit material and the extent to which such outlawing can be implemented consistent with sound First Amendment theory. It concludes that obscenity should be regarded as speech and should be punishable only if there is exploitation of participants. 

This paper critiques obscenity laws in southern Africa, based on the laws in place in Lesotho, Malawi and Zambia, as measured against constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.

This article provides an overview of the law relating to obscenity in the United Kingdom. The author discusses the philosophical justifications for regulating obscene matter, with particular reference to pornography and film censorship. 

The article presents an interesting empirical study of community standards and reactions to violent and non-violent sexually explicit films.

Written in the backdrop of the Miller v. California decision, this article examines obscenity jurisprudence in the United States in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution The discussion is located within the larger contours of law and morality. 

This article identifies particular features of obscenity in a digital environment, such as accessibility, affordability and variety, and explores how far some influential views about their significance hold good. It analyses the community standards regarding obscenity in various countries, such as the US, the UK and Canada.

This article argues that the current American regulations relating to obscene material are flawed as it rests on the premise (drawing from the Miller case) that obscene materials do not express ideas. It also discusses the theoretical problems of regulating material deemed to be “obscene”.

This article identifies two judicial schools of thought in the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutional definition of speech, and its interplay with obscenity. It argues that both these schools fallaciously assume that obscenity involves the expression of ideas, and that obscene expression falls outside the protection of the First Amendment.

This article argues that the current American regulations relating to obscene material are flawed as it rests on the premise (drawing from the Miller case) that obscene materials do not express ideas. It also discusses the theoretical problems of regulating material deemed to be “obscene”. 

Presenting a comparative analysis of obscenity law and the cultural context in Korea and the United States, this Article addresses the impact that the Internet has on sexual expression and regulation of obscenity. 

This article questions the possibility of the criminal law having any legitimate concern with obscene language, and suggests that obscene language can be criminalized only when it is used as a means of harassment. The author reviews American law on the point and concludes that “obscene language on the public media is not properly subject to governmental regulation, whether by criminal law or otherwise”. 

Through separate empirical surveys, these two articles examine how “community standards” are often misrepresented to further agendas. The authors show that different regions and different classes of individuals have different views of what constitutes pornography or obscenity, and suggest that the law is bound to fail when it uses community standards to define obscenity

This article questions the possibility of the criminal law having any legitimate concern with obscene language and suggests that obscene language can be criminalized only when it is used as a means of harassment. The author reviews American law on the point and concludes that “obscene language on the public media is not properly subject to governmental regulation, whether by criminal law or otherwise”. 

This article identifies two judicial schools of thought in the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutional definition of speech, and its interplay with obscenity. It argues that both these schools fallaciously assume that obscenity involves the expression of ideas, and that obscene expression falls outside the protection of the First Amendment.

This article explores whether courts should instruct the trier of fact to apply a virtual community standard to obscenity prosecutions involving pornography on the Internet. It provides an overview of obscenity law and explores the historical development of the community standard test. Finally, it evaluates the application of a virtual community standard test for obscenity transmitted through computer networks and advocates its use in trials where the pornographer’s only contact with the legal forum is through Cyberspace.

This article examines the protection of artistic freedom by the European Court of Human Rights, and illustrates that it has been inadequate. The author suggests that the Court, in providing concession to the ‘margin of appreciation’ doctrine, tends to override artistic liberty in favour of the national enforcement of morality in contracting states

This article analyzes whether a government can legitimately prohibit citizens from publishing or viewing pornography.

The article discusses obscenity regulation in Hong Kong and critically examines the idea of an “acceptable community standard”.

Written in the backdrop of the Hart–Devlin debates, this article critiques Lord Devlin’s arguments which advocate using public morality as a ground for criminalising private conduct, with particular reference to homosexuality and pornography.

This Note comprehensively discusses changes in modern obscenity law in the United States and the United Kingdom to adapt to the internet.

The article can be downloaded from the Duke Law Scholarship Repository official website.

This incisive book deals with the use of the criminal law to enforce morality, in particular sexual morality, a subject of particular interest and importance since the publication of the Wolfenden Report in 1957.

Professor Hart first considers John Stuart Mill's famous declaration: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community is to prevent harm to others." During the last hundred years this doctrine has twice been sharply challenged by two great lawyers: Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, the great Victorian judge and historian of the common law, and Lord Devlin, who both argue that the use of the criminal law to enforce morality is justified.

The author examines their arguments in some detail, and sets out to demonstrate that they fail to recognize distinction of vital importance for legal and political theory, and that they espouse a conception of the function of legal punishment that few would now share.