Palatable to good taste

"The author of Howl has used those words because he believed that his portrayal required them as being in character. The People state that it is not necessary to use such words and that others would be more palatable to good taste. The answer is that life is not encased in one formula whereby everyone acts the same or conforms to a particular pattern. No two persons think alike; we were all made from the same mold but in different patterns. Would there be any freedom of press or speech if one must reduce his vocabulary to vapid innocuous euphemisms? An author should be real in treating his subject and be allowed to express his thoughts and ideas in his own words." (1:09:30)

This is the ruling the judge makes to conclude the trial. He decided that Howl, while it may have foul language, is not an obscene work. This is important because throughout the interviews that are scattered through the movie, Ginsberg says the purpose of his novel is to "break the ice" and here, with the ruling, the poem is finally seen as just that. The judge sees exactly what Ginsberg is trying to say in his poem, that people are different and need to embrace it. This part in the movie stuck out to me when the judge says he could have used other words more "palatable to taste." This is because it is obvious that the judge, and others in the audience, are uncomfortable with such language and topics in the poem, but nevertheless, the judge is able to see its' literary value.

Throughout the trial, the People were arguing the "literary value" more than exactly how obscene the poem was. Does this mean, if it were valuable, a book could be as obcene as the author wanted and it would still be acceptable?