◆ SpookStack

\ aD 2k 0-88 appeal must be to “prurient interest." "Obscene material is material which deale with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest," Roth v. United States, 354 U.3. 476, &87 (1957) (footnote omitted). : . But the search for a definition does not end there .23 To whose prurient interest must the work appeal? While the rule is often stated in terms of the appeal of the material to the | 4 “average person,” Roth v. United States, 354 U.8. 476, 489 (1957)? it must be borne in mind that the cases applying the standard in this manner do so in regard to material which is to be distributed to the public at large. I believe, however, that the more inclu- BSive statement of the definition is that which Judges the material 13 See Judge Frank's discussion of the appropriateness of judicial definitions of obscenity, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in the Roth case. United States v. Roth, 237 F.2d 796, 801 et seq. (concurring opinion) (od Cir. 1956), aff'd, 354 U.3. 476 (1957 L: —— | 14 see also United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses etc., 72 F.2d 705, r. ; Walker v. Popenoce, Fr2d 511, 512 (D.C. Cir. 1945) ("ordinary reader"). under- stand the statement in Ulysses that permission to import does mot depend upon “the character of those to whom [the materials) are sold," 72 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir. 1934) to mean that in a case of material distributed to the general public, the claimant may not show that there are some members of the public ag to whom the material will not have a prurient appeal.