ABSTRACT I explore the antinomy of where indecency belongs – in the centre or at the margins of discourse? – and reconsider the concept of obscenity based on a particular sense of the margin that has informed its function in literature and law. How can a public discourse address what is by definition to be kept at the margins? Is it possible to quote obscene speech without being guilty of the same offence? May decorum – in legal and literary genres – be breached for a higher good? These questions have challenged civic-minded humanists since antiquity and English and American judges since the early eighteenth century when the common law began to regulate obscene libel. I examine, therefore, in selected legal cases and theoretical reflections, two rival perspectives: the position, represented by Milton, that the unseemly ought to be confronted directly (‘righteous indecency’), as well as the viewpoint, articulated in The Port-Royal Logic, that we ought to favour euphemism or other figures of avoidance (‘evasion of infamy’). In the courtroom, the debate between exposure and shrouding of indecency creates what could be called the problem of the complicit censor: when judges desire to keep the records pristine and their self-presentation august notwithstanding an obligation to evaluate the specific facts at issue. This quandary, a choice between two fraught approaches to obscenity, plays out both in the pivotal opinion in Regina v Hicklin and within its very object of adjudication, The Confessional Unmasked.

中文翻译：

---

淫秽和边缘化

摘要我探讨了dec亵归属的对立面-在话语的中心还是边缘？–并根据已在文学和法律中发挥作用的特殊边缘感重新考虑淫秽的概念。公众话语如何才能从定义上讲保留什么？是否可以引用淫秽言论而不犯相同的罪行？法律和文学流派的礼仪是否可以为了更高的利益而遭到破坏？自古以来，这些问题就一直挑战着具有公民意识的人文主义者，自十八世纪初普通法开始规范淫秽诽谤以来，这些问题就挑战了英美法官。因此，在某些法律案例和理论反思中，我研究了两种相互竞争的观点：以米尔顿（Milton）代表的立场 不道德的事物应该直接面对（“正义的dec亵”），以及《皇家港口逻辑》中阐明的观点，我们应该支持委婉的说法或其他回避的形式（“回避耻辱”）。在法庭上，暴露和and亵之间的辩论造成了所谓的共审员问题：当法官希望保留记录的原始性和庄严的自我陈述时，尽管有义务评估有争议的具体事实。这种困境是在两种令人费解的淫秽方法之间做出选择的，既体现在里贾纳诉希克林案的关键意见中，也体现在其裁决的目的-《 mask悔的Conf悔》中。我们应该支持委婉或其他回避方式（“回避侮辱”）。在法庭上，暴露和and亵之间的辩论造成了所谓的共审员问题：当法官希望保留记录的原始性和庄严的自我陈述时，尽管有义务评估有争议的具体事实。这种困境是在两种令人费解的淫秽方法之间做出选择的，既体现在里贾纳诉希克林案的关键意见中，也体现在其裁决的目的-《 mask悔的Conf悔》中。我们应该支持委婉或其他回避方式（“回避侮辱”）。在法庭上，暴露和and亵之间的辩论造成了所谓的共审员问题：当法官希望保留记录的原始性和庄严的自我陈述时，尽管有义务评估有争议的具体事实。这种困境是在两种令人费解的淫秽方法之间做出选择的，既体现在里贾纳诉希克林案的关键意见中，也体现在其裁决的目的-《 mask悔的Conf悔》中。当法官有义务保持原始记录和庄严的自我陈述时，尽管有义务评估有争议的具体事实。这种困境是在两种令人费解的淫秽方法之间做出选择的，既体现在里贾纳诉希克林案的关键意见中，也体现在其裁决的目的-《 mask悔的Conf悔》中。当法官有义务保持原始记录和庄严的自我陈述时，尽管有义务评估有争议的具体事实。这种困境是在两种令人费解的淫秽方法之间做出选择的，既体现在里贾纳诉希克林案的关键意见中，也体现在其裁决的目的-《 mask悔的Conf悔》中。