The "Miller Test" of obscenity was created in the early 1970's when selling porn either meant putting it on shelves in a brick and mortar store in a distinct community or showing it at a brick and mortar theater in a distinct community. Arguably, one could determine that the community standards of Cleveland would presume something like Gag Factor 18 to be obscene while the community standards of New York City might not. The seller could decide not to show the movie or put the magazine on the shelves of conservative communities. The seller had a very active part in determining where the materials were viewed. Mail order was unheard of, and the VCR was not even a market, so movies were only seen at theaters.

Today, the producer can be in a liberal community that tolerates Gag Factor 18 but the Postal Inspector orders it online to have it shipped to Mobile, Alabama. What "community standards" apply?? If the seller's community accepts the material but it is shipped or viewed over the Internet in a conservative community, the producer can be tried in that conservative community.

If I think Gag Factor 18 is disgusting, I don't need to watch it. The producers of Gag Factor 18 won't let me watch it unless I pay for it, so it is only seen by those that really want to see it. There is already a prohibition against children having access to pornography, so there does not need to be a content-based restriction triggered by the degree of adult activity shown.

Although my own personal tastes tend to be rather vanilla, I support the right of consenting adults to film and distribute legal activities to other consenting adults that want to view it. Outlawing distribution to minors, outlawing depictions of minors engaged in adult activities, and outlawing forced activities is already settled and accepted law. The law does not need to go any further to protect anyone.