Leg Show by Parliament Vol. 4 # 4 Magazine

FICTION
8 A FLASH OF HOSE - Del Gace
ARTICLE
36 HIGH HEELS: A Rise for Guys - Scott Rainey
PICTORIALS
4 THIGH HIGH HOSING
12 ORAL MEDICINE
16 GOLDEN GARTERS
22 HIGH RISE HOT SPOT
26 CHERRY STEMS
32 SEAMS FOR SEAMEN
40 ANKLES AWEIGH!
46 GARTER SNEAK
52 THIGH DIVER

EDITORIAL
United States Supreme Court Justices have grappled long and hard with questions about what is and what isn't obscene, about what artistic or literary materials can be banned before such supression dangerously violates our basic Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and liberties. Yet the Court's determination of what is and what isn't obscene has been fraught with enormous difficulties, primarily because no cut-and-dried definition of obscenity is anywhere to be found.
For example, the following standard was used in judging obscenity in the landmark case of ROTH v. UNITED STATES (1957):
"Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."
But the thoughtful reader will ask himself who is the "average person"? And what contemporary community standards was the Court talking about—the community in which the alleged obscene material originated or the area in which it is available for sale and presumably read? Further, how does one go about measuring the degree to which material "appeals to prurient interest"?
Throughout the development of obscenity law in the United States one discerns a common theme. Obscenity, aside from being seen as aesthetically objectionable, has the power to incite lustful thoughts which, in turn, cause criminal or pervated acts. This unconfirmed assumption had a lot to do with causing all the noise about getting certain books removed from bookstore shelves, firing teachers who permitted their students to read certain classics of literature and forming regulatory committees whose members see obscenity everywhere except, of course, in their own lives! One is left with the unmistakable impression that those who speak out most vehemently against so-called "obscene material" are precisely those most fascinated with it.
Your right to read what you want to read, to view what you want to view, is a Constitutionally-protected right. There can be no "clear and present danger" to anyone in society should you want to read or view certain materials in the privacy of your home. That is your business!