Someone sm*rter than me please explain this:
If the Miller case established that speech ruled obscene was not protected under the 1st amendment... and "obscene" speech was essentially defined as anything that didn't pass the SLAPS test, or conform to community standards of decency...
then why exactly do we have a 1st amendment? To "protect" serious scientific, literary, artistic, and political speech that conforms to community standards?

And it's a fucking tragedy that so many short-sighted producers are content to see their unsavory competitors fed to the lions, without any eye on the bigger picture. Hang together or you'll all hang separately dipshits.
Best of luck to John and Karen.