PTravel, thank you for the clarification. My post was as much as question as a treastise on what I understood the law to be. I am more troubled now, because I thought we were protected from seizures outside the definition of obscene. Who defines morality in this country?

So, if the law permits the seizure of 'immoral' material, I believe that is unconstitutional. The part about sedition was already discussed, and is understood.

To permit the seizure of non-sedicious, non-threatening material which is not specifically obscene, but could be construed as immoral - and the one who initially judges immorality is the inspector - is a violation of my 1st Amendment rights. So, in fact, we are actually in total agreement, I just wanted to clarify the issue of immoral vs obscene, and frankly I am surprised and troubled that something outside the "Miller test" could be seized on the whim or opinion of a customer inspector, and I would need to fight before a judge to get it back.

In my opinion, I believe the Miller Test should be applied to all seizures, and anything that does not fall within its tenet should be allowed. However, I am also troubled by some of the language of Miller itself.

Breaking it down, by point:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Unless I am reading this incorrectly, are we to assume the work must pass a test of acceptance, in order to avoid being labeled obscene?

* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Different states have different laws pertaining to many sexual acts. Which state's laws are used? Conservative Texas, or liberal California?

* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This one is particularly troubling. So now society becomes an art critic? One man's Monet is another man's garage sale junk. One man's Shakespeare is another man's sedicious rhetoric. Who assigns the value? Using what critiera?