To the Editor,

I’m opposed to the Board of Education banning Flamer and Blankets. The following is information from an attorney with expertise in this matter.

Here are important points for Board members interpreting the “Miller” obscenity test [Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973)]. At the last meeting, Chair Deborra Zukowski and member Daniel Cruson offered reviews of their analyses of the Miller test. Mr Cruson concluded the books aren’t obscene; the Chair suggested they had an obscenity element of sexually explicit content. If the books are obscene, 1st and 14th Amendments don’t apply.

Both are commended for their efforts, but respectfully, they each over-analyzed the Miller test.

The Miller test has three parts:

*Does “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

*Does the work depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

*Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last is held to what is reasonable to a person of the United States as a whole. The national reasonable person standard of the third prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in one community may be considered obscene but on a national level may have redeeming value. The Miller test asks for an interpretation of what the “average” person finds offensive, rather than what more sensitive persons in a community find offensive.

As to the first condition, the average person in our community does not believe the works taken as a whole appeal to prurient interest. Evidence: a handful of complainers versus a tremendous groundswell of the community objecting to the bans, as well as the unanimous vote by the Special Committee of expert educators, who work every day with students and parents of Newtown, that they remain in the library. First condition not satisfied — Game, Set, Match.

Although debatable, let’s assume the second condition is satisfied, this is what the Chair dwelt on. However, the works already are determined not obscene, so the 1st and 14th Amendments now apply.

Nonetheless, let’s look at the third prong. Clearly, both books as a whole have literary value on the national level. Evidence: along with the multiple literary awards won by both books, every Board member agrees they have both literary and educational value. For the second time – Game, Set, Match.

The 1st and 14th Amendment prohibit these books from being banned; see Attorney Gaston’s two previous Letters to the Editor.

This analysis of the Miller test is truly meant to be helpful, not critical. Thank you to all the BoE members for their service.

Respectfully,

Lynn Edwards

Sandy Hook