1. Would average person, using contemporary community standards, find that it appeals to prurient interest
2. Does the work describe or display sexual conduct specifically described by state law
3. Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artisitic, political or scientific (LAPS) value

Cannot ban on content, but can regulate for other justified reasons- zoning, quality of life, FCC

Because speech is protected, Sup Ct will take careful look - cant ban porn based on "subordination to women" or too broadly (nudity in drive in theaters)

Intermediate level of scrutiny not very successfull - Stevens view re crush videos

FCC has broad authority to regulate even non obscene speech - Pacifica, fleeting expletives (not dealt with by CT.0 historical roots not like internet

Internet, video games, and phone limits on speech have been unsuccessful

Diff level of scrutiny - Hudson Test

1. Is speech truthful and not misleading
2. Is there a substantial gov interest?
3. Does the regulation advance that interest
4. Is the regulation "no more extensive than necessary to serve the gov interest"

Rise and fall of vice restrictions - Rx, liquor, casino, cigs

Content based restrictions only if it is narrow, necessary and N

Burden is on government to prove

Cannot limit viewpoint content (republican) or subject content (all political speech) speech

Symbolic speech (burn draft card - not allowed or burn flag - was allowed)

Intermediate level of scrutiny - ask, 1) is the law primarily related to suppression of free expression (yes for draft card, no for flag burning), 2) Does it further substantial gov interest (yes for o'brien), 3) is it no greater than required to meet gov interest (yes for o'brien at the time)

Flag burning

Ist attempt to limit based on argument that flag burning was not content based speech (it clearly is)

Second attempt went for conduct - burning, mutilating, desecrating sacred object or flag - not just conduct but also content based attempt at limiting speech

also content based with other laws already limiting desecration of graves, etc. 

Generally parks, streets, sidewalks - if intentionally opened up as public forum (rented room for city hall)

Cannot have subject matter or viewpoint discrimination

Can have reasonable Time, Manner, Place restrictions

Cannot be overbroad (banning too much speech)

Can ban sound trucks, cannot ban leafletting handout but can ban signs (aesthetic values)

Gov can create limited PF by opening property for use by certain groups or certian subjects

Public college campuses

Still cannot ban viewpoint dscrimination - can have subject matter limits but not viewpoint limits