OBSCENITY STANDARDS: Part 1

Hicklin Test (England, 1868)

Materialobscene if any portion of it has a tendency "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall."

US Standards

Roth v United States(1957)

"whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."

Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan defined obscenity as "material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest . . . having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts [or] as [a] shameful and morbid interest in sex."

Jacobellis v Ohio (1964)

Material must be "utterly without redeeming social value."

Justice Potter Stewart said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

Miller v California (1973)

Obscene if

  • The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (Roth Test)
  • The work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
  • The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

Relevant community standards are local, not nationwide.

Community Standards of Tolerance Test for Obscenity: A History

R. v. Hicklin [1868] LR 3 QB 36

Brodie v. The Queen, [1962] S.C.R. 681

Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494

R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120

R. v. Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80

Brodie (1962)

“[The work under attack] has none of the characteristics that are often described in judgments dealing with obscenity – dirt for dirt’s sake, the leer of the sensualist, depravity in the mind of an author with an obsession for dirt, pornography, an appeal to a prurient interest, etc.”

CCC Section 163

“For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.”

Towne Cinema

“To determine ‘undueness’ one of the tests to be applied is whether the accepted standards of tolerance in the contemporary Canadian community, taken as a whole, have been exceeded. In applying the community standard of tolerance what matters is not what Canadians think is right for themselves to see. What matters is what Canadians would not abide other Canadians seeing because it would be beyond the contemporary Canadian standard of tolerance to allow them to see it.”

“The trier of fact must formulate an opinion of what the contemporary Canadian community will tolerate in order to determine ‘undueness’ by the community standards test. The community consensus must be assessed and community level of tolerance objectively determined. While evidence of the community standards of tolerance may well be useful in many cases, it is not essential, for it is the opinion of the trier of fact about the community standards of tolerance which is important.”

“…from the very beginning of this Court’s consideration of s. 159(8) ‘community standards’ have been viewed as one measure of ‘undueness’ in the exploitation of sex. They have never been the only measure of such undueness; still less has a breach of community standards been treated as in itself a criminal offence. There are other ways in which exploitation of sex might be ‘undue’. Ours is not a perfect society and it is unfortunate but true that the community may tolerate publications that cause harm to members of society and therefore to society as a whole. Even if, at certain times, there is a coincidence between what is not tolerated and what is harmful to society, there is no necessary connection between these two concepts. Thus, a legal definition of ‘undue’ must also encompass publications harmful to members of society and, therefore, to society as a whole.” [Dickson]

“As I see it, the essential difficulty with the definition of obscenity is that ‘undueness’ must presumably be assessed in relation to consequences. It is implicit in the definition that at some point the exploitation of sex becomes harmful to the public or at least that public believes that to be so. It is therefore necessary for the protection of the public to put limits on the degree of exploitation and, through the application of the community standard test, the public is made arbiter of what is harmful to it and what is not.” [Wilson]