Xref: utzoo news.admin:3159 news.groups:5020
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!staff.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
From: rsk@staff.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies (Updated: 26 July 1988)
Message-ID: <17@staff.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 88 07:13:24 GMT
References: <4535@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1212@flatline.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsk@staff.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rich Kulawiec)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 23

In article <1212@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes:
>In article <4535@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes:
>> alt.sex			Postings of a prurient nature.
>
>Hey Gene, how about changing the wording of that definition?
>
>Under obscentity laws in some states (and in some federal courts)
>obscene materials (among other things) "are of a prurient nature."  Some
>laws are much more liberal, but I think using a legal definition of
>obscentity, even if it's only used by some states, is begging for trouble.

All obscene materials are of a prurient nature; but not all prurient
materials are of an obscene nature, or at least that's how the terms
seem to be used in case law.  (E.g. "redeeming social value" and all that.)
I feel Gene's choice of words is quite accurate, and does not imply
obscenity, even (and especially) in the legal sense.

For reference, see Roth v. United States (1957), Paris Adult Theatre I
v. Slaton (1973) and Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) for an interesting,
if not terribly enlightening, viewpoint on the Supreme Court's use
of the term "prurient interest" in the resolution of obscenity cases.

I am not an attorney,
Rich Kulawiec