I know it when I see it

==History==

==History==

The rulings of the [[United States Supreme Court]] concerning obscenity in the public square have been unusually inconsistent. Though [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] [[free speech]] protections have always been taken into account, both Constitutional interpretationalists and originalists have limited this right to account for public sensibilities. Before ''[[Roth v. United States]]'' in 1957, [[common law]] rules stemming from the 1868 English case ''[[Hicklin test|R v Hicklin]]'' have articulated that anything which "deprave[s] and corrupt[s] those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was said to be obscene, and therefore banned.[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582 ''Roth v. United States''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150926200104/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582/ |date=September 26, 2015 }}. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. February 8, 2012. The Roth case gave a clearer standard for deciding what constitutes [[pornography]], stating that obscenity is material where the "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest", and that the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would disapprove of, reaffirming the 1913 case ''[[United States v. Kennerley]]''. This standard allowed for many works to be called obscene, and though the Roth decision acknowledged "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance ... have the full protection of guaranties [sic]", the Justices put public sensibility above the protection of individual rights.

The rulings of the [[United States Supreme Court]] concerning obscenity in the public square have been unusually inconsistent. Though [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] [[free speech]] protections have always been taken into account, both constitutional interpretationalists and originalists have limited this right to account for public sensibilities. Before ''[[Roth v. United States]]'' in 1957, [[common law]] rules stemming from the 1868 English case ''[[Hicklin test|R v Hicklin]]'' have articulated that anything which "deprave[s] and corrupt[s] those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was said to be obscene, and therefore banned.[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582 ''Roth v. United States''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150926200104/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582/ |date=September 26, 2015 }}. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. February 8, 2012. The Roth case gave a clearer standard for deciding what constitutes [[pornography]], stating that obscenity is material where the "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest", and that the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would disapprove of, reaffirming the 1913 case ''United States v. Kennerley''. This standard allowed for many works to be called obscene, and though the Roth decision acknowledged "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance ... have the full protection of guaranties [sic]", the Justices put public sensibility above the protection of individual rights.

''[[Jacobellis v. Ohio]]''[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_11_2 ''Jacobellis v. Ohio''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924064106/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_11_2 |date=September 24, 2015 }}. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. February 8, 2012. (1964) narrowed the scope of the ''Roth'' decision. [[Justice Potter Stewart]], in his concurrence to the majority opinion, created the standard whereby all speech is protected except for "hard-core pornography". As for what, exactly, constitutes hard-core pornography, Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case {{bracket|[[Louis Malle]]'s ''[[The Lovers (1958 film)|The Lovers]]''}} is not that."

''[[Jacobellis v. Ohio]]''[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_11_2 ''Jacobellis v. Ohio''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924064106/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_11_2 |date=September 24, 2015 }}. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. February 8, 2012. (1964) narrowed the scope of the ''Roth'' decision. [[Justice Potter Stewart]], in his concurrence to the majority opinion, created the standard whereby all speech is protected except for "hard-core pornography". As for what, exactly, constitutes hard-core pornography, Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case {{bracket|[[Louis Malle]]'s ''[[The Lovers (1958 film)|The Lovers]]''}} is not that."