{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017107309486780714, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0754716981132075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Universal Standard for Obscenity? The Importance of Context and Other Considerations

abstract The U.S. Supreme Court’s Miller test for obscenity states that there should be a “community standard” that defines what is obscene. The reliance on such a standard depends on a set of questionable assumptions about the both the existence of a consensus view in a given community and individual jurors’ ability to utilize such a standard when it diverges from their own views. Utilizing an original survey experiment, I show that there are strong practical difficulties with these assumptions that question the implementability of the Miller test.