This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| There is persuasiveness to the approach followed in Roth: 'The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. Hicklin [1968] LR 3 QB 360. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press. On the other hand, the substituted standard provides safeguards to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity."[228] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||