If you follow their link (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15356452945994377133#p197 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=153564529459943...

If you follow their link (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15356452945994377133#p197 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=153564529459943...) the pertinent quote is > "[...] that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography.[2] I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. > [2] It is too late in the day to argue that the location of the line is different, and the task of ascertaining it easier, when a state rather than a federal obscenity law is involved. [...]" So they seem to have many definitions of hard-core pornography, which are complicated by State and Federal law covering the ground twice, but are refusing to talk details of either because they have rejected the film being hard-core pornography in the broadest sense. This seems reasonable, and a way a judge can stop some external group wasting public time and funds by needlessly going over the minutia of the laws. Githubs use appears to be diametrically opposite to what they paraphrase.