<P> The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if: </P> <P> (a)...' the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest...(b)... the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c)... the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value . </P> <P> Note that "community" standards--not national standards--are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest, leaving the question of obscenity to local authorities . Child pornography is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in New York v. Ferber (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990), ruling that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount . </P> <P> Personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law . In Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Court ruled that "(i) f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch ." However, it is constitutionally permissible for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private . Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) further upheld these rights by invalidating the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that, because the act "(p) rohibit (ed) child pornography that does not depict an actual child" it was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that: </P>

Which of the following is not a right protected by the bill of rights