Final answer:
The statement that a work is acceptable for anyone to read if it is not profane would be considered false, as suitability depends on more than just the absence of profanity. Factors like age appropriateness, maturity, and individual sensitivities must be considered, as well as legal standards such as the Miller test.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement presented, 'Dr. Rearick claims that if a work is determined not to be profane it should be acceptable reading for anyone,' would logically seem to be false if we consider it in a larger context of social and legal standards. However, without specific reference to Dr. Rearick's original argument or context, it's difficult to categorically confirm the truthfulness of this statement. It's worth noting that the determination of whether a work is profane or not does not automatically make it suitable for all audiences due to various factors such as age-appropriateness, maturity levels, and individual sensitivities.
When discussing standards for acceptable content, the United States, for instance, considers three primary conditions under the Miller test, developed by the Supreme Court for determining what constitutes obscene material. They are:
- The 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
- The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
- The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Even if a work is not profane or obscene by these standards, age appropriateness and other factors come into play when determining if something is suitable for 'anyone' to read. Therefore, a statement asserting that non-profanity alone makes content universally appropriate oversimplifies the complexities involved in content evaluation.