[enragedcacti]

Obscene in the context of the first amendment protections is defined by the Miller test regardless of how any laws define obscenity. The third prong alone is a high bar to clear in this case and its what makes the claim far from factually unambiguous imo.

> Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[nvm0n2]

It's meant to be an educational text, no? It doesn't seem to fit any of those categories.

[enragedcacti]

They are not categories, they are contexts, and educational texts can have value within any or all of those contexts. In fact being educational or informative could inherently be considered to be of literary value.

Many people rightfully complain about the lack of specificity and clarity in the third prong, but that is even more evidence for why it is a bad community note because there is obvious room for interpretation and the note leaves none. Thus, even if you agree with its conclusion, it lacks sufficient context which is one of the voting criteria.