Has the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity changed over time?

The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity has indeed changed over time, reflecting evolving societal standards and shifts in judicial philosophy. This dynamic nature of obscenity law is particularly evident in landmark cases such as Miller v. California (1973), which established the Miller test to determine what constitutes obscene material. This test considers whether the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Prior to this, definitions of obscenity were often narrower and relied on more rigid standards, but the introduction of the Miller test allowed for a more nuanced approach, accommodating changes in societal values and norms over time. As different cases have emerged, the Court has interpreted these standards in various ways, leading to significant distinctions in how obscenity is assessed across different periods. Thus, the understanding of obscenity has been influenced by ongoing cultural conversations about morality, freedom of expression, and artistic representation, confirming that the definition is not static but rather subject to change.