|
1. Roth v. United States, (1957) 2. Facts: Two cases involving the mailing and advertising of obscene books. One federal and one state. 3. Procedural Posture: Roth was convicted under federal obscentiy statutes. Alberts was convicted under California statute prohibiting sale and advertising of obscene books. 4. Issue: Whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected speech and press. 5. Holding: no. 6. Majority Reasoning: [Brennan] Implicit in the history of the first amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. Since obscenity does not fall under free speech, it is no defense that a particular book would not induce antisocial behaviour, and thus the state would not have a sufficiently strong interest to prohibit it. The definition of obscenity is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interests. The test of whether a particular material is obscene is whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests. 7. Dissent Reasoning: [Douglas] This test makes the legality of a publication depend on the purity of thought which a book or tract instills in the mind of the reader. The people are as capable of rejecting noxious literature as they are of sorting out true from false in theology, economics, politics, or any other field. 8. Notes: In Kingsley Int’l Pictures v. Regents, (1959), the court struck down a new york licensing law which banned “immoral” films, holding that “immorality” was not coterminous with “obscenity.” In Stanley v. Georgia, (1969), the court struck down the conviction of a man for the possession of obscene films in his house, stating that “if the first amendment means anything, it means that the state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.” However, in United States v. Reidel, (1971), the court upheld a law prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials, stating that mail distribution poses the danger that obscenity will be sent to children and unwilling adults.
|
