This chapter examines the use of obscenity doctrine to address hate speech. It first considers the U.S. test currently used for obscenity, set forth by the Supreme Court in the 1973 case Miller v. California, along with criticisms against the Miller test. It then discusses the three prongs of the Miller test in order to adapt it to hate speech: appeal to the prurient interest; patent offensiveness and statutory definition; and a material's lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It also explores the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1974 case Hamling v. United States, in which it tackled the mental state required for a person to be guilty of a violation of obscenity laws.
NYU Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.