Does a work have to be comprehensible to be obscene?

[Derleth]

@elfkin477

Could the artist use the concept of pareidolia as a defense? You know, there’s nothing actually dirty in the art, but* some people*'s brains are wired in a way that suggests obscenity in the innocuous…

I don’t see how that’s not equivalent to what I just posited. It would be a necessary element of my defense, in any case, which makes me think this thread just concluded it wouldn’t work.

[ivn1188]

Let’s look at legal facts here.

Obscenity is a completely subjective thing. There supposedly exists a 4 prong test for obscenity, which depends on “artistic merit” and “community standards” and a few other vague things.

So the answer to the OP is “Who knows?”

I know it’s not satisfying, but such an artwork being declared obscene or not would basically be up to the judge who caught the case, and would probably end up in a federal appellate court, where one or maybe three judges would decide based on personal preference.

But the real answer to the OP is that no one knows. Not a satisfying answer, but it’s the only answer we have. Everything else is merely a guess/argument.

[Chronos]

I tried to make my pun obvious:

The pun was obvious, but I thought it might be a pen name of sorts for an actual artist.

[tr0psn4j]

@Derleth

@PlainJain

Ah, OK. Thanks Chronos, as an artist myself I thought I was really out of the loop.

I tried to make my pun obvious: H.R. Giger is a real artist that has a corporate department abbreviation in his name, so I replaced H.R. (Human Resources) with I.T. (Information Technology), as my hypothetical artist used computers. From there, Giger to Geiger-Counter was just an obvious twist, in addition to being a reference to the practice of generating true randomness by measuring the time between particle decay events in a piece of radioactive material.

(Also, one of the most striking features of H.R. Giger’s work is how he uses human anatomy as a ‘resource’ is his new compositions. I thought that would make the pun easier to see. Maybe you just need to borrow my eyes… )

Heh, the pun went over my head. I spent a good while wondering what Geiger counters have to do with art or even randomly selecting images.

[PlainJain]

@Derleth

I tried to make my pun obvious… Maybe you just need to borrow my eyes… )

Hey no worries. The fact that I missed it is much more a reflection on my perceptiveness than your pun-ability. I like the OP.

[Derleth]

@ivn1188

Let’s look at legal facts here.

Obscenity is a completely subjective thing. There supposedly exists a 4 prong test for obscenity

The Miller test has three prongs. Do you know of a test I’ve missed?

Which brings me to the reason I asked: American jurisprudence is heavily based on case law, which can modify a written statute or basic principle in all kinds of crazy ways. Case law is where the Miller test comes from, for example; it wasn’t created in blackletter law. I was mainly wondering if there was any relevant case law that would imply a work has to be meaningful to be obscene. I suppose the answer is ‘no’ based on this thread.

[ivn1188]

@Derleth

@ivn1188

Let’s look at legal facts here.

Obscenity is a completely subjective thing. There supposedly exists a 4 prong test for obscenity

The Miller test has three prongs. Do you know of a test I’ve missed?

Which brings me to the reason I asked: American jurisprudence is heavily based on case law, which can modify a written statute or basic principle in all kinds of crazy ways. Case law is where the Miller test comes from, for example; it wasn’t created in blackletter law. I was mainly wondering if there was any relevant case law that would imply a work has to be meaningful to be obscene. I suppose the answer is ‘no’ based on this thread.

You’re right, I made a typo and didn’t catch it.

I doubt there is a specific case addressing this specific issue. However, I don’t think the idea of meaningfulness is a useful one. You’re really getting at the intent of the artist, and the definition of “serious artistic merit”. But unlike many people in this thread, I would argue that the randomness is more likely to give it “serious artistic value”. It wasn’t created simply to appeal to the prurient interest.

Anyway, the other problem with finding caselaw on the distinction is that obscenity prosecutions are almost always attempts to regulate porn and such; I don’t think there are many courts or prosecutors who would commit to such a case and the inevitable ACLU involvement, especially if the viewer really has to look for the naughty content.

[Derleth]

ivn1188, all those reasons make sense.