1. The sole judge of whether a work is obscene or not shall be the average person applying the prevailing standards of the community in which the work is being challenged.
2. The work in question must clearly and unambiguously depict sexual or excretory activities and/or organs in a patently offensive manner.
3. Taken as a whole, the work must clearly be shown beyond reasonable doubt to:
   1. appeal to prurient interests; and
   2. be utterly without redeeming educational, literary, political or scientific merit.

The point of which was first addressed in the courts in the 1922 ruling Halsey v. New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, which thus established legal precedent that a work being challenged as obscene must be considered as a whole:

No work may be judged from a selection of such paragraphs alone. Printed by themselves, they might, as a matter of law, come before the meaning of the [obscenity] statute. So might a similar selection from Aristophanes or Chaucer or Boccaccio or even from the Bible. The book, however, must be considered broadly as a whole.

Which, to the forces of Kulturkrieg on the Religiopolitical Right, can easily be exploited, methinks, by recruiting some poor, undereducated and easily-influenced specimen of "white trash" to act as "singer," so to speak, for the sake of some court challenge such an element may want to launch in a fit of overzealous hysteria for their own selfish purposes of attention and little else.

One who can be easily paid off to the point of taking unscrupulous advantage of their unfortunate financial circumstances, as well as influenced through mind-control techniques as are somehow out of the "Church of Scientology" playbook to ensure proper degree of subtleties, nuances and shades of meaning as would influence the court all the more.

As for the community in which to challenge said works as "obscene," expect such to find certain socioeconomic backwaters of deliberate poverty and ignorance--the sort not even Wally World would want to locate in, even with financial incentives--having "zero tolerance" standards for obscenity based on "unwritten habit and tradition" (a/k/a common law) influenced by overzealous Low Church cultural influence to the point of interference.

Not to mention finding a jury pool of such specimens of poverty and stupidity who can easily be paid off to render a ruling of Obscene in the end, even if such risks charges of Perverting the Course of Justice through Jury and/or Witness Tampering and Conspiracies related, let alone attempts by the "sponsors" (so to speak) of the action to avoid arousing suspicions by "meddling bloggers" and suchlike that such untoward perversions were going on.

Which, all in all, reduces the whole concept of Kulturkrieg to nothing less than a "Groucho war" which needs to be watched out for--especially such designed solely to attract publicity and "winning of hearts and minds" among Those Who Should Know Better, as well as trying all manner of ways to avoid arousing suspicions as would expose the whole to be farce.