“That is incorrect. The legal precedent is ‘the average person applying contemporary community standards,’ you added the word “local.” The USA is a community, and the community standards of the average American are not the standards of the average democrat pervert sodomite...don’t expect any jury to pay any attention to your absurd sophistry.”
Tailgunner Joe is a good handle for you, blasting away without checking too carefully what you’re shooting at. You quoted the first of four parts of the test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California. Part 4 is where the “local” comes from:
“The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a ‘national standard.’” Pp. 413 U. S. 30-34
And why did the Supreme Court say that it was proper to use a local community standards instead of a national standard? Because, according to the Court, it is impossible to enunciate a national standard:
“Page 413 U. S. 30
Under a National Constitution, fundamental First Amendment limitations on the powers of the States do not vary from community to community, but this does not mean that there are, or should or can be, fixed, uniform national standards of precisely what appeals to the “prurient interest” or is “patently offensive.” These are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists. When triers of fact are asked to decide whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would consider certain materials “prurient,” it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation. The adversary system, with lay jurors as the usual ultimate factfinders in criminal prosecutions, has historically permitted triers of fact to draw on the standards of their community, guided always by limiting instructions on the law. To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national “community standard” would be an exercise in futility.
Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable “national standards” when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter
Page 413 U. S. 32
of fact. Mr. Chief Justice Warren pointedly commented in his dissent in Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 378 U. S. 200:
“It is my belief that, when the Court said in Roth that obscenity is to be defined by reference to ‘community standards,’ it meant community standards — not a national standard, as is sometimes argued. I believe that there is no provable ‘national standard.’ . . . At all events, this Court has not been able to enunciate one, and it would be unreasonable to expect local courts to divine one.”
It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City. [Footnote 13]
The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a “national standard.” Pp. 413 U. S. 30-34” (finish)
So my “absurd sophistry” in fact comes from the very language of the Supreme Court.
Good luck overturning those convictions! Bwahahaha!