While some of these terms have some case precedence, the issue of subjectivity frequently comes up when a case is appealed, and many, many elements are nullifie

While some of these terms have some case precedence, the issue of subjectivity frequently comes up when a case is appealed, and many, many elements are nullified on appeal review. For more in-depth analysis, see: https://www.firstamendment.com/obscenity-laws/ https://www.firstamendment.com/obscenity-laws/ For an especially problematic issue see "Reason Number 3: Because You Don’t Know Whether You’re Guilty Until the Jury Renders Its Verdict" And their whitepaper, https://www.firstamendment.com/articles/Nexus_Obscenity_in_the_Digital_Age_Article.pdf https://www.firstamendment.com/articles/Nexus_Obscenity_in_t... | The more troubling aspect to this defect in obscenity laws is the inability for law abiding Webmasters to steer clear of inadvertent violations of the law. It is an essential element of any fair criminal justice system that all laws must adequately advise citizens how to comply with them, and more importantly, how to avoid breaking them. Citizens should not be so uninformed that they avoid lawful conduct in order to keep from violating an inadequately defined law. For example, Congress has determined that no one should drive faster than 65 miles per hour, but it is perfectly fine-and in many cases citizens are encouraged-to drive right at the speed limit. Every driver understands his or her rights and obligations, and can easily comply with the law. Imagine the chaos and outcry if the speed limit were defined as “the highest speed measured in cubits per hour that the average person, if polled today, would find that a Unicorn could gallop, with a serous purpose as measured by a reasonable person in the community.” Imagine how slowly people would go; imagine how many tickets would be written for speeding. Imagine how long it would take for such an inane standard to be repealed.