What Does it Mean to Be Obscene?

Television and radio broadcasts are regulated by standards established by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC governs what can be heard, said, and/ or shown on network television and terrestrial radio. Media platforms outside of traditional broadcasting, such as digital media broadcasters,  follow many FCC standards voluntarily. Performance venues, digital networks, and people who are not regulated by what is done on traditional TV and radio  know what the FCC rules are.  The main issue with obscenity is the interpretation of those laws.  Many stand-up comedians must walk a fine line between censorship and free speech, by adjusting their styles accordingly.  According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must pass a ‘three-prong test.’

The barometer for how obscenity is decided has changed over time. Many stand-up comedians face a constant struggle of wanting to speak openly, which places them in a situation similar to early 20th century publisher Samuel Roth. The book, Obscenity Rules: Roth v. United States and the Long Struggle over Sexual Expression by Whitney Strub make some poignant points about censorship, obscenity, and indecency. Strub states how, “Roth spent nearly a decade of his life imprisoned, on several occasions, for the things he sent through the mails. Ironically, the very case that sent him to his longest sentence is the one that ensured that every single thing he had ever sold, no matter how covertly under the table, would be openly available across the nation within years.”  Censorship and free speech constantly sway back and forth on the  scales of interpretation.  Acts that were once illegal are fought for and may eventually become legal, as time goes on.

Standards of indecency were affected by two major court cases, and a motion picture film. The cases were Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973).  The film was The Pawnbroker (1964).  The book, Lust on Trial: Censorship and the Rise of American Obscenity in the Age of Anthony Comstock, by Amy Werbel is clear in explaining various aspects of those specific court rulings. She (Amy Werbel) spoke about Justice Potter Stewart’s confusion in defining obscenity, saying that, “Stewart’s honest but ultimately unhelpful “definition” of obscenity never had the force of law and in any case was soon superseded by the three-part test adopted by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California in 1973.” Stand-up comedians carry the burden of learning what they can legally say, and how they can acceptably say it. If a stand-up comic does not know the rules before they arrive at a venue, they may be stopped mid-performance and told that they can not say certain parts of their performance. The line between free speech and censorship is not always clear, and the cost of  experimentation can become expensive.

When obscenity was an issue, Paul Krassner provided insight that teetered toward the other side of  obscenity. In the book, Who’s to Say What’s Obscene?: Politics, Culture, and Comedy in America Today, by Paul Krassner, he said: “I’m saddened and  outraged by The lack of accountability in government agencies, multinational corporations and organized religions. Nobody takes responsibility for the anguish they cause unless they’re prosecuted.” The point here is that Krassner  could speak about comedy, but he was also conscientious enough to speak about various problems in society. No less could be expected from Krassner, who worked with Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and a number of other comedic luminaries. The bottom line is that censorship standards are measured by specific criteria. In terms of evading indecency and obscenity regulations, maximum effort is put into finding gaps in the rules that regulate censorship.