listened to by young people in the private sphere of family and friends. From this perspective, the courtroom was simply not the appropriate place to determine the incitement danger of music (Houser 1990). 3. Obscenity by Law The amount of legal debate that the 2 Live Crew case has produced is by all standards staggering. At least a dozen papers in law reviews have analyzed the case from a multitude of legal perspectives. Interestingly, one of the papers was written by the 2 Live Crew defense attorney Bruce Rogow, Professor of Law at Nova University, in a special issue of the Nova Law Review. Three papers in the issue dealt with the obscenity trial. The editors originally intended to include a cassette version of the album with the review. However, the editors decision "was vetoed for non-academic, non-legal considerations - in favor of protecting the perceived sensibilities and sensitivities of those upon whose support this University is dependent. Thus, we are reminded again of the power of speech" (Editors Note, Nova Law Review (1991) 15(1):118). Reviewing Judge Gonzalez application of the Miller test step by step, legal scholars have argued against each and every decision the Judge made (see Beatty 1991:637-641; Campbell 1991:192-237; Furer 1991:472-494; Friedland 1991:132-157; Gordon 1991:517-524; Morant 1992:28-29; OGallagher and Gaertner 1991:113-121; Wolfe 1993). First, it was argued that the Judges determination of the relevant community and its standards was overtly subjective. The Judge decided upon a geographical concept of community, but this was inappropriate because the fact that people live in close physical proximity does not automatically suggest that they share common values. Judge Gonzalez was also inconsistent in determining, on the one hand, that the considered community is generally more tolerant than others, and, on the other hand, that he could rely on his personal knowledge of the community standards which he n...
