OBSCENE

7 definitions found across Law Mind sources

OBSCENEAuthored
The Law Mind • 1276 words
Definition
In law, obscene describes material — written, spoken, printed, or pictorial — that offends established standards of sexual decency and is therefore subject to legal prohibition or regulation. The term functions as a threshold adjective: material crossing into the obscene loses First Amendment protection and may be criminally prosecuted, civilly regulated, or suppressed. Modern federal constitutional law defines obscene material by the three-part Miller test: (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Material meeting all three prongs is legally obscene and unprotected. Material failing any single prong is not legally obscene, regardless of how offensive many may find it. The term also appears in older federal statutes — particularly those governing mail and importation — where it is used more loosely to mean indecent, lewd, or filthy content, and in those contexts courts historically applied a broader definition than the modern constitutional standard requires.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To act or speak in an obscene manner; to offend. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing or presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure. Also: foul, filthy, disgusting. The common meaning of obscene is broader and more subjective than the legal meaning. In ordinary use, something obscene may simply be deeply offensive, shocking, or morally repugnant — including content that is violent, financially outrageous, or politically extreme. The legal definition is narrower and more precise: it is anchored to sexual content specifically, tested against community standards and a defined constitutional framework. Researchers who encounter the word obscene in statutes, indictments, or judicial opinions must confirm whether the document is invoking the technical constitutional standard or using the term in its looser statutory or colloquial sense.
Common Confusion
OBSCENE vs. INDECENT vs. LEWD: These three terms travel together in historical statutes and often appear as a string — "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" — but they are not interchangeable in modern constitutional law. Indecent material is a broader category that may be regulated (e.g., in broadcast media) but is not subject to outright prohibition. Lewd and lascivious typically describe conduct or intent elements in criminal statutes and do not carry the same constitutional freight as obscene. Only material that satisfies the full Miller test is constitutionally obscene and therefore unprotected; material that is merely indecent or lewd retains First Amendment protection in most contexts. OBSCENE vs. PORNOGRAPHY: Not all pornography is legally obscene. Pornographic material that fails the Miller test — particularly the third prong requiring absence of serious value — remains protected speech. Child pornography is a separate constitutional category entirely, subject to prohibition without reference to the Miller test.
Core Elements
The Miller test (from Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)) provides the operative constitutional framework for determining whether material is legally obscene: 1. Prurient interest: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work as a whole appeals to a prurient (shameful or morbid) interest in sex. 2. Patent offensiveness: Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state or federal law. 3. Lack of serious value (the SLAPS test): Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This prong is assessed by a reasonable person standard, not a community standard. All three elements must be satisfied for material to be legally obscene.
Why It Matters in Research
The legal meaning of obscene has changed dramatically over time, and the corpus reflects all eras. Before Miller (1973), courts applied the Hicklin test, which asked whether material had a tendency to deprave and corrupt persons who might be exposed to it — a far more expansive standard that could sweep in serious literary works. Between Roth v. United States (1957) and Miller, there was an unstable period where the Court struggled to articulate a workable standard. Researchers reading pre-1973 cases, congressional hearings, or law review articles will encounter definitions, arguments, and outcomes that are constitutionally obsolete. The word obscene in an 1895 indictment or a 1960 appellate opinion means something legally distinct from the same word in a post-Miller context. Federal mail and importation statutes — notably the Comstock Act and its successors — used obscene broadly, and courts construing those statutes sometimes applied Hicklin and sometimes their own variants. Historical sources discussing these statutes should be read carefully; a finding of "obscene" under those regimes would not necessarily produce the same result today. The corpus also contains substantial material on obscenity regulation at the state level, where variations in how "community standards" are defined and how the third Miller prong is applied produce meaningful differences in outcomes. A researcher tracking obscenity prosecutions should note the jurisdiction and the date before drawing conclusions from case outcomes. Child exploitation material (child pornography) appears in some older sources under the obscenity umbrella but is now a distinct constitutional category treated under New York v. Ferber (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990). Researchers should not conflate these bodies of law when working with sources that predate Ferber.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries converge on an essentially moral definition centered on offensiveness to chastity and modesty. Black's (2nd Ed.) defines obscene as "lewd; impure; indecent; calculated to shock the moral sense of man by a disregard of chastity or modesty" — a formulation that is notably subjective and rooted in a Victorian moral vocabulary. Bouvier's is largely consistent, identifying the obscene as "offensive to chastity and modesty" and noting application to language, writing, print, and pictorial productions. Anderson's entry in the source material is plainly mismatched — the text provided discusses correspondence and evidence rules rather than obscenity — suggesting either a transcription error or misfiled source material. Researchers should treat Anderson's as absent for this entry. What the historical dictionaries miss almost entirely is the constitutional dimension. Written before modern First Amendment doctrine, they treat obscenity as a moral and statutory category without grappling with the speech-protective framework that would develop through the mid-twentieth century. They also reflect the Hicklin-era assumption that obscenity is primarily a question of moral corruption, with no analogue to the serious-value prong that now anchors the Miller standard. For constitutional research, the historical dictionaries are useful for background and legislative intent in older statutes but should not be treated as stating current law.
Jurisdictional Note
The Miller test is the federal constitutional floor; states may not define obscenity more broadly, but the "contemporary community standards" prong means that what is obscene in one community may not be in another. Federal prosecutions involving internet distribution have generated significant litigation over which community's standards apply when material is accessible nationwide.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Obscenity and Pornography — Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia Obscenity and Pornography: Miller Test and Child Exploitation Laws — Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia
Related Terms
Obscenity | Lewd | Lascivious | Indecent | Prurient interest | Miller test | Hicklin test | Community standards | Child pornography | Pornography | First Amendment | Prior restraint | Comstock Act | Chastity | Moral turpitude
OBSCENEmain
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910
Lewd; fmpure; indecent; calculated to shock the moral sense of man by a disregard of chastity or modesty. Timmous vy. U. S., 8) Fed. 206, 30.C. CG. A. 74; U. 8. v. Harmon (D. C.) 45 Fed. 414; Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 486, 17 Sup. Ct. 375, 41 L. Ed. 799; Com. vy. Landis, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 453.
OBSCENEmain
Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890
Negotiations merge into a contract the moment a stamped letter assenting to the proposed terms is mailed. See further OFFER, 1. That a witness may refresh his memory by referring to a letter, see REFRESH. If a letter offered in evidence purports to be a reply to a letter referred to, the latter must be called for, in order to be put in evidence with it. See VERBUM, Verba illata. The author of letters, whether they are literary compositions, familiar letters, or letters of business, possesses the exclusive copyright in them. No person, other than he or his representative, not even the addressee, has a right to publish them upon any account, except upon such occasions as require or justify their public use; as, in a lawsuit, a letter necessary to establish one's rights, or a letter sent to a paper to vindicate the writer's reputation. For the stronger reason the addressee may not publish them for profit. In short, the addressee has but a limited right or special property in letters, as a trustee or bailee, for particular purposes, either of information or protection, or of support of his own rights and character. The general property belongs to the writer, whatever the character of the letters. An exception is made in favor of the government, as to official letters by public officers. The receiver of private letters cannot make them the subject of sale without the writer's consent. Therefore, a contract to sell letters written to another person who advertised remedies for diseases, the purchaser intending to send an advertisement to the writers, is contrary to good morals, and void. Includes what is foul or indecent, and what is immodest or calculated to excite impure desires.5 Is applied to language spoken, written, or printed, and to pictorial productions. Obscene, lewd, or lascivious publications of an indecent character, are neither mailable nor importable." He who deposits such publications in the mails, and he who receives the same for circulation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of one hundred to five thousand dollars, with imprisonment for one to ten years, or both.s The test is whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such influences, and into whose hands a publication of the sort may fall. A book need not have words which are in themselves obscene, in order to be obscene. Regard is had to the idea conveyed by the words used, in any substantial part of the publication. "Obscenity" is that form of indecency which is calculated to promote general corruption of morals. "Lewdness" has a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. The indictment need not specify in what respect a picture is unlawful. One may have what views on religion he pleases, and publish the same, but not in connection with obscene matters sent through the mails. The prohibition applies to an obscene writing or letter inclosed in a sealed envelope. 10 The purpose is to exclude from the mails only such articles as are impure and immodest and tend to corrupt the morals. 11 The fact that the publications were sent in the real Evans's Appeal, 58 Pa. 244 (1868), Strong, J. See also 123 Mass. 102; 22 N. J. E. 463; 25 Am. R. 35; 19 Alb. L. J. 328; 1 Williams, Ex. 144. L. ob-loqui, to speak against: contradict. • Bettner v. Holt, 70 Cal. 275 (1886), Foote, J. L. obscenus, repulsive, foul. [United States v. Loftis, 12 F. R. 673 (1882), Deady, D. J.: Worcester's Dict.; s. c., 8 Saw. 194. or supposed interest of science, philosophy, or morality is immaterial. The indictment should allege a scienter. An allegation that the accused "knowingly deposited" the objectionable matter cannot be extended to embrace an averment of scienter.¹ The fact that post-office inspectors used test or decoy letters to bring to justice a person suspected of mailing obscene literature does not discredit their testimony.¹ Any offense, which, in its nature and by its example, tends to the corruption of morals, as, the exhibition of an obscene picture, is indictable at common law.2 Whether matter published is obscene or not, is a question of law for the court. If the matter is too gross to be spread upon the records that fact may be averred as an excuse for not setting the matter out. But this rule is not general. See VERBUM, In hæc. See also BoOK, 1; DECOY; INDECENT; NAKED, 1; POLICE, 2; PUBLICATION, 2.
OBSCENEmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
or for the performance of covenants and conditions, and not to mortgages; 2 III. 142.
OBSCENEn.
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913
Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing of presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure; as, obscene language; obscene pictures. Words that were once chaste, by frequent use grew obscene and uncleanly. I. Watts. Foul; fifthy; disgusting. A girdle foul with grease bobscene attire. Dryden. Inauspicious; ill-omened. [R.] [A Latinism] At the cheerful light, The groaning ghosts and birds obscene take flight. Dryden.
obsceneverb
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
To act or speak in an obscene manner; to offend.
obsceneadj
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
Offensive to standards of decency or morality. | Lewd or lustful. | Disgusting or repulsive. | Beyond all reason; excessive. | Liable to corrupt or deprave.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In