I've been wondering for a week or so whether it's worthwhile to suggest to
squeaky that this particular FAQ be clarified, and this suggests to me that the answer is yes. (Once the stuff with the server is taken care of, anyway.)
One of the things that makes it ambiguous is that it refers both to "indecent" material and to the
Miller test when talking about what's permissible where. The reason this is problematic is that the
Miller standard is the test for whether material is *obscene*, which is something very different from whether material is indecent. Obscenity has no First Amendment protection, but indecency does, and material can be indecent without running afoul of the
Miller standard.
This being the case, I've been assuming that what the FAQ meant was that
obscenity was restricted -- otherwise, there's no reason to mention
Miller at all. But it does make sense that IJ might want certain indecent material to be locked and/or kept in adult communities -- that is, the FAQ might not refer only to obscene material. The document is ambiguous enough, I now think, that it's worth asking for a review once the current technical difficulties have been dealt with.