Final answer:
The Supreme Court has upheld bans on obscenity except in cases involving child where the bans are almost absolute. Obscenity is defined using the Miller test, but with varied applications due to differing regional standards. Restrictions on broadcasts are stricter to protect children in the audience.
Step-by-step explanation:
In general, the Supreme Court has upheld bans on obscenity, except for cases involving children, where the bans are almost absolute due to the universal agreement against the exploitation of minors. However, when it comes to adult material, the Supreme Court has established the Miller test to determine what is considered obscene. This test considers three factors: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The application of 'contemporary community standards' suggests that what may be deemed obscene can vary greatly from one region to another.
Moreover, while the Supreme Court has allowed the state and national governments some leeway to regulate sexual morality, it has declined to define obscenity, leaving it to local juries to apply the Miller test and make determinations based on those guidelines, subject to potential appeals. Additionally, the FCC also enforces indecency regulations over broadcasts, and these regulations are more stringent when children might be in the audience.