Something else I just read and did not previously realize: Miller specifically mentions "excretory functions" as something covered within obscenity:

Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [2] specifically defined by applicable state law

Granted, the prosecutor would still have to get over the other Miller hurdles and the hurdle of "patently offensive", but the fact that excretory functions are specifically mentioned makes me a little more nervous.

As Chad has said several times, prosecutors tend to go for the slam dunk, so "iffy" cases are unlikely to get prosecuted. There's risk within just about every part of this business, and I guess each of us has varying levels of comfort with different types of risk, but for me, it's always felt like something that's a bit over the line.