LAW OF OBSCENITY: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

When confronted with the concept of obscenity, individuals may be inclined to consider obscenity as synonymous with pornography. The words “pornography” and “obscenity” are frequently interchanged in lay communication; however, they are in fact two discrete definitions of materials which some individuals may consider indecent. The word “pornography” derives from the Greek “porne” (harlot) and “graphos” (writing), and is identified in Webster’s Third International Dictionary as “a description of prostitutes or prostitution, a depiction of licentiousness or lewdness, or a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement.” Pornography describes sexually explicit material, but it is not a legally defined term. Obscenity, on the other hand, is legally defined; however the legal definition is purposefully vague. Its current definition is based on what is commonly referred to as the Miller Test, which stems from the 1973 Supreme Court case Miller v. California (discussed later in this paper). In order for material to be considered obscene, it must fail all three aspects of this test. When material is defined as obscene, it is not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.