The following text has been added to the Constitution, under "Profanity and Sexual Depictions."
Amendment: 21 December 2003
In general, moderators will employ the "Miller test" to evaluate cases of borderline obscenity. In Miller v. California (1973), the United States Supreme Court developed a three-fold test to differentiate art from wanton obscenity:
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 the applicable state law.
3. “Whether the work, taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
(Source: First Amendment Center: Adult Entertainment in Speech)
Obviously, these criteria are highly subjective, but they provide a suitable rubric from which to evaluate a post. The moderators are not obligated to use the Miller test, but will generally employ it when a post borders on the inappropriate.
I hope this new provision you have implemented will do what it's suppose to do. However, I feel when does a post border on the inappropriate? If an creative person writes something and they feel it has warrant who are the moderators to enforce otherwise?
I hope it works. I don't think it's needed but possibly .Time will tell
I don't think this new amendment/addition/clarification of the Quoteland Constitution is actually intended to "do" anything. There have been some works that have pushed the envelope of vulgarity and profanity to the point of the moderators having to look for some direction as to how to handle it. This rubric, as David calls it, is just an expansion of some suggested guidelines we can use as moderators to help keep Quoteland a basically clean and wholesome place for people of all ages to visit and enjoy. Anyways, that's just my take on it.
