The idea that there is such a thing called &quot;obscenity law&quot; always struck me as profoundly backwards - the idea that someone can be so bothered by a piece of media they chose to willingly consume that they can take away the right of others to do the same.<p>This is one glaring inconsistency in the way courts have handled exclusions to freedom of speech. Normally, any abridgement requires a strict scrutiny test, and as far as I know, nobody has been able to articulate what, exactly, the legitimate and narrow government interest in regulating &quot;obscenity&quot; is.<p>AFAICT, it&#x27;s a vestige of the puritan roots of the country.