According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, obscene is defined as “disgusting to the senses, loathsome.” California law defines obscene material as "taken as a whole, which the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the lewd interested party, which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a manner that is patently offensive and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Obscenity refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media. Objectionable material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonous, or harmful to national security. The Bill of Rights, “The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing any religion or restricting its free exercise; also prohibits Congress from restricting the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition. So, does the First Amendment cover obscenity? The Supreme Court says no, it has refused to grant First Amendment protection to obscene or defamatory words and writings. Justice Potter Stewart expressed the difficulty in his famous statement: "I will not attempt today to further define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." The court system used the Miller test, a test that uses three questions to define obscenity. Question 1: Does the average person applying contemporary community standards believe that the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest? Question 2: Is the material potentially offensive? Question 3-Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value? Under FCC and Fed rules...... middle of paper ...... has set zoning laws, for clubs that offer nude dancing. Personal possession of obscene material in the home cannot be prohibited by law. Writing for the court in Stanley v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the State has no business telling a man sitting at home what books he can read or what films he can watch. to the obscene law, the only thing I would change is to remove it from the law. However, I would leave out and delete the parts regarding child pornography and images of children presented in a sexual manner. This is the only part of the obscenity law I would leave. But if PC 311 is truly on the books to protect children, then obviously it's necessary and I'm fine with that. However, I believe this is a way of limiting civil liberty, making it unconditional and contrary to human rights..