That test was modified by United States v. Richards, which ruled that animal crush videos (videos that involve the killing of animals) can be obscene and therefore, are not protected by the First Amendment even though they do not clearly appeal to sexual interests. The court ruled animal crush videos to be unprotected obscenity for two reasons. First, animal crush videos can appeal to a "specific sexual fetish," which fits the sexual conduct requirement of the Miller test. Second, United States v. Richards modified the Miller test by ruling that obscenity "can also cover unusual deviant acts" even if they are not directly sexual. Child pornography also falls under the category of unprotected obscenity by these tests. Due to the combination of murder and pornography depicted on shock sites that contain murder videos like gore2gasm.com, legal scholars have argued that murder videos also appeal to specific sexual interests and are thus unprotected under United States v. Richards.
That test was modified by United States v Richards which ruled that animal crush videos (videos that involve the killing of animals) can be obscene and therefore are not protected by the First Amendment even though they do not clearly appeal to sexual interests The court ruled animal crush videos to be unprotected obscenity for two reasons First animal crush videos can appeal to a "specific sexual fetish" which fits the sexual conduct requirement of the Miller test Second United States v Richards modified the Miller test by ruling that obscenity "can also cover unusual deviant acts" even if they are not directly sexual Child pornography also falls under the category of unprotected obscenity by these tests Due to the combination of murder and pornography depicted on shock sites that contain murder videos like gore2gasmcom legal scholars have argued that murder videos also appeal to specific sexual interests and are thus unprotected under United States v Richards