The outcome has been described as a victory for anti-pornography feminism[2] and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund,[3] but a loss for alternative sexualities.

[4] The case involved one Donald Victor Butler, who owned a store called Avenue Video Boutique on Main Street in Winnipeg.

However, the Supreme Court found fault with this opinion, saying that while the obscenity related to physical matters, they still made expression.

The Supreme Court rejected the idea, noting that in making a film many creative choices in editing will have to be made.

The Court, citing the Beetz opinion in R. v. Morgentaler (1988), said that a law that can be interpreted differently is not necessarily too vague.

Objectives suggested by the Crown included prevention of harm that may arise from the attitudes promoted by the obscenity.

The Court noted, then, that the law should not affect acceptable pornography, namely the type that might celebrate female sexuality and pleasure.

Justice John Sopinka then went on to state that materials in the first category "will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex."

And, finally, material in the third category "is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production."

Any material that was considered to be the "undue" exploitation of sex would fall within the definition of "obscene" in the Criminal Code.

Critics of Butler argued that the test failed to recognize pornography that promotes equality of homosexuals.

The Supreme Court also found that "It may serve repeating that the national community standard [recognized in Butler] relates to harm not taste."

Thus, the majority disregarded the community standards test, despite the dissent's objections that this was not an inevitable consequence of Butler.