4 ms·

Yes, extremely bad faith. These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity, but they're not obscene.

• zozbot234 1y ago
  > These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity Funnily enough, that's exactly what "obscene" means in popular parlance. On the other hand, the legal standard for what should be considered obscene is so inherently uncertain and varies so much across time and place that it's just meaningless to say anything that purports to be definitive about that.
  • throwanem 1y ago
    No, it isn't. The modern standard of obscenity in US federal law, the "Miller test," derives from a 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the eponymous Miller v. California. I realize you're referring to some universal abstract theoretical concept of obscenity that doesn't apply or exist. The one I describe does, and I think that makes it more useful here.
    • zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      The Miller test doesn’t apply to content for minors though. So even here you are oversimplifying. Especially considering this post is about school.
      • ethbr1 1y ago
        Why not? All three parts of the Miller test can be tailored to average reader age.
      • throwanem 1y ago
        You're quite correct that the Miller test makes no such provision, because as another commenter here has noted, it is too general to require one. Here is the text of the relevant decision, in case anyone would like to discuss that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15