Talk:Obscenity

Confusing sentence

In the section titled "Public funding/public places", the following appears: Even with this law in place it is hard for artists who have addressed sexually explicit work in work because of complaints which are generally in the form of "inappropriate for children" or seen as a form of "sexual harassment." Therefore the arts works are removed and at times there are official "no nudity" policies that are put in place.[20]

It doesn't seem to make sense. What does "explicit work in work" mean? I would correct it, but I really have no idea what thought is trying to be conveyed here. Could the author please rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Vidrine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This misworded sentence subsequently got moved to United States obscenity law. I finally reworded it on 28 May 2023 to read "sexually explicit matter". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Split section on US law into separate article?

This has an undue focus on US law. I proposed we split out the information on US law to its own article, with a summary here per Wikipedia:Summary style. Precedents include:

• United States contract law
• United States tort law
• Privacy laws of the United States
• Criminal law of the United States

I propose United States obscenity law, but we can also consider Obscenity laws of the United States. I'll wait a week before taking any action. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented this change and begin summarizing the US section. Jokestress (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Canadian obscenity law, bestiality

Is it a criminal offense in Quebec to have in your possession bestiality porn video for the purpose of own private viewing and not having anything to do with its creation, production or distribution?

Wikipedia is unclear, it says: "Section 160 forbidding "bestiality". In addition 'Compelling the commission of bestiality' and 'Bestiality in presence of or by child (under the age of 16) are also separate crimes and all of these offenses are subject to imprisonment up to 10 years."

But I don't think this concerns own private viewing, no? Or am I, by watching/owning a bestiality DVD - am I thus being a obscene, immoral zoophile and thus, should be criminally punished? Like the evil, obscene and immoral homosexuals were just up until recently? --Autismal (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Miller Test

uh, the standards superseded by the Miller Test include the Miller Test. Someone should probably fix that for clarity. romnempire (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Top-of-page thing

I have quite often heard the word obscenity used as a synonym for profanity (I don't know whether this is a strictly incorrect usage or not). Therefore, mightn't it be a good idea to have a heading at the top reading something like "For the use of foul language, see profanity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias

Rather obvious especially with such stupidly written sentences as "However, it's been found that films have also been further censored than their heterosexual, male, white counterparts due to gay sex (even if implied)". Someone add a NPOV tag to that section (Censorship in film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.169.240 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Obscenity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060823022442/http://www.uce.ac.uk/mapplethorpe/ to http://www.uce.ac.uk/mapplethorpe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Prurience" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Prurience has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 12 § Prurience until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 10:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)