MOKGORO J especially troublesome. Thus, for example, the case of Luke Records, Inc. v Navarro,65 cast a federal judge in the unfamiliar role of music critic, when he had to determine whether music containing sexually explicit lyrics performed by the popular “rap” group 2 Live Crew was obscene. Having found that the first two prongs of the Miller test were satisfied, the trial judge decided that the group’s music as a whole lacked artistic value, thus satisfying the third prong of the test. He accordingly declared the music obscene.66 That judgment was overturned by the appeal court on the basis that there was insufficient evidence on the artistic value question. 67 [42] The Canadian Supreme Court has adopted a markedly different approach to pornography from that adopted in the United States, discarding the public-morality basis that underpins the American approach in68 favour of a standard based explicitly on the harm believed to be engendered by certain kinds of sexually explicit material. In the celebrated case of R v Butler,69 the Canadian Court, reviewing the conviction of the owner of a sex shop for selling “obscene materials”, an offence under the Criminal Code, was called upon to consider the following 65 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir. 1992). 66 960 F.2d 134, 136 (11th Cir. 1992). 67 960 F.2d 134, 138-39 (11th Cir. 1992). While the conviction of the rap musicians in this matter was ultimately reversed, the singling out for prosecution of Afro-American performers whose work does not comport with decorous mainstream conceptions of what constitutes “art” would appear to be the ineluctable result of an obscenity jurisprudence that calls upon judges to make aesthetic determinations. As one commentator has noted, “the journey from Ulysses to Hustler involves more than a move from literature to smut, from words to images. It involves the transition from the preoccupations of an educated minority to the everyday fantasies of the bluecollar majority. . . . Once upon a time, obscenity was confined to expensive leather-bound editions available only to gentlemen. . . . One of the questions asked by the crown prosecutor [in the trial of the publisher of Lady Chatterley’s Lover] was: ‘Would you let your servant read this book?’ . . . Hustler is the servant’s revenge.” Neville, Has the First Amendment met its Match?, N.Y. Times, March 6, 1977, p. 16 (quoted in Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1988) 918-19.) 68 See, e.g., Paris Adult Theatre v Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 59-69 (1973) (noting “‘right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society’.”) (quoting Jacobellis v Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 199 (1964). 69 [1992] 8 C.R.R. (2d) 1. 23