Susan notes the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Miller v. California, 1973. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its implications in the struggle for freedom. It is a misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press." She argues that this fundamental ruling shifted ground to the extent at which the First Amendment guarantees freedom and its use in justification of pornographic production is equivalent to watering down the very base that has assured great protection against oppression of liberal and minority groups. .
In understanding Susan's position versus the ground upon which pornographic producers seek solace, we must look at the wording of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I am not a lawyer, and therefore, my interpretation is based on the basic understanding of the correct wording as it is. The guarantee of this law is against the state establishing any form of institution, religious or otherwise, that may curtail on the fundamental freedom of people to talk and assemble as long as they do so peacefully. The restriction of pornography must, therefore, be founded on it being offending and not peaceful.
The many cases that have sought interpretation of their suitability and classification on sexual content have created another thin line as to what really is extreme sexual content in literature. These cases include the 1934 case of James Joyce's Ulysses and Henry Miller's Tropical books; Lady Chatterley's Lover and Memoirs of Fanny Hill.
