◆ SpookStack

& to be anyone to whom the appeal would be other than prurient, or that in a case of widespread distribution the material was of euch a nature that its appeal to the average person must be held, as a matter of law, to be prurient.> It should be obvious that obscenity must be judged by the material's appeal to ‘gomebody. For what is obscenity to one person is but e@ _ Subject of scientific inquiry to another. And, of course, the substitution, required by Roth’ of the “average person" test ‘(in cases of widespread distribution) for the test according to the effect upon one of particular susceptibility, isa matter of determining the person according to whom the appeal of the material is to be judged. Once it is admitted that the material's appeal to some person, or group of persons, must be waed as the standard by which to gauge obscenity, I believe that the cases teach that, in a case such as this, the appeal to be probed is that to the people for whon, and for whom alone, ‘the material will be available. It is possible, instead of holding that the material - 38 not obscene in the hands of the persons who will have access to at, to speak of a conditional privilege in favor of scien- tists and scholars, to import material which would be obscene . in the hands of the average person.>3 I find it unnecessary 3. gee footnotes 14, 20, supra. 32 goth v. patted states, 354 U.8. 476, 488-9 (1957). 33 see note 30, supra. , age