The interpretation of obscene and indecent has changed significantly over the years in Canadian law. Courts evaluate potential criminal offences, under the Criminal Code of Canada, using tests to see if they are obscene or indecent in the eyes of the law. While there is no explicit definition of obscenity in the Criminal Code, it can be interpreted as involving any material or action that does not meet the prevailing test. Formulating a concrete test to be used in all relevant cases has proven difficult, with many modifications made as societal views change. The two main tests predominantly used are the Canadian Standards of Tolerance Test (CSTT) and the Harm Test. The former emphasizes the degree of tolerance allowed by Canadian society, while the latter focuses on the harm or risk of harm that a performance could provoke. In this essay I will argue that the Harm Test is a better measure of obscenity and indecency than the CSTT ever was. The basis of my argument rests on two main premises. By providing a brief synopsis of obscenity tests used throughout Canadian history, I will explain why the established test should provide evaluations based on criteria that can be measured more objectively than community values. Next, I will elaborate on my belief that it is more reasonable to define obscenity by the risk of harm that a given act or object presents, rather than by social tolerance. To conclude, I will provide my final observations on why harm testing is a great improvement and how it relates to the Millian philosophy. Since Confederation, Canada has established several tests to determine whether an act or object can be considered obscene or indecent. While there is a distinction to be made... at the heart of the card... making sure individuals do not harm themselves. Therefore, it appears that the harm test actually strikes a delicate balance between freedom and justice, which is crucial to any well-functioning society. Works Cited Callaghan, G., Waluchow, W. (2014). [Lesson]. Harm testing and community standards of tolerance: from Brodie to Labaye. PHILOS 1B03, Philosophy, law and society. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University.McLachlin, B. (2008). R. v. Labaye. In D. Dyzenhaus, S. Reibetanz Moreau, and A. Ripstein, Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy (3rd ed., pp. 336-341). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Mill, J.S. (2008). On Freedom. In D. Dyzenhaus, S. Reibetanz Moreau, and A. Ripstein, Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy (3rd ed., pp. 306-326). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Towne Cinema Theaters Ltd. v. The Queen, [1985], 1 SCR. 494