Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score 1) 574

In fact, in Miller v. California, the following test was given for obscenity:

  • the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
  • the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[1] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
  • the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This test is still in use today.

Comment Re:ex post facto (Score 1) 406

Ex post facto has a relatively narrow legal interpretation in the U.S. - essentially, it only means you can't *increase* punishments in a criminal case retroactively. Decreasing punishments is (and should be) fine.

See Calder v. Bull. Note that compulsory sex offender registration is not considered a punishment by SCOTUS.

Disclaimer: IANAL