Ariel Schrag

My sister could weigh in on this - she's taking an art law class at NYU Law which discusses the criteria that distinguishes "art" from "porn" when there is sexual/nude content. There's the Miller test which is basically this:

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:

... Ver mais


* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest



* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law



* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

It of course gets more complicated when there is sexuality/nudity depicted with people under 18. The intent of the artist isn't always going to coincide with the intent of the reader. But people sexually interested in children are going to look at children's clothing catalogs, and that doesn't make the clothing catalogs "porn," even if used as such.

My comics couldn't (by the Miller test) and shouldn't be considered obscene, but they have been banned.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOO