Any discussion of a national obscenity standard must begin with the question: Does one exist? The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. California, along with subsequent clarifying decisions, declared that from then on local communities would in effect establish their own rules and standards of what was and was not obscene. WhatÆs more, the court ôspecifically rejected the concept of a nationwide æcontemporary community standard,Æ and left to the individual statesö to determine the scope of the community upon which questionable material might be judged (Linz, 1994, 82). Thus, at the time many thought this might abolish for good any thought of a national standard. Not surprisingly, however, considering the unpredictability of American public life, the high courtÆs ruling has raised surprising questions and had some unexpected side effects û until now, a national obscenity standard of the de facto type appears to loom on the horizon.
The courtÆs landmark 1973 decision ôwas based on the commonsense assumption that enough differences exist between communities to warrant each community having its own standardö (Winick, 1994, 405). However, in the years since, either the country has changed or the basis of the ruling may have been invalid in the first place. For on the one hand, growing evidence indicates that similarities in taste and tolerance may far outweigh any supposed differences. On the one other hand, the pattern may not be so clear-cut. Indeed, ôstudies of trends in public opinion on permissiveness toward pornography suggest a à patternö in which levels of tolerance are shifting only in complex and subtle ways (Linz, 1991, 81). After all, the Supreme Court itself has stated that material which is obscene and material which is constitutionally protected ôare separated by only a ædim and uncertain lineÆö (Linz, 1991, 81). Indeed, at the time of Miller many felt the courtÆs ruling was in truth an a...