<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:15:59 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Roth v. United States (1957)</title><subtitle>Roth v. United States (1957)</subtitle><id>http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/atom.xml"/><updated>2010-01-11T03:56:34Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Roth v. United States; Alberts v. California (1957)</title><id>http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/2010/1/10/roth-v-united-states-alberts-v-california-1957.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/2010/1/10/roth-v-united-states-alberts-v-california-1957.html"/><author><name>Paul</name></author><published>2010-01-11T03:47:58Z</published><updated>2010-01-11T03:47:58Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;">Read the opinion </span><a style="font-size: 110%;" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0476_ZS.html"><span style="font-size: 110%;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 110%;">.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Issue</span></strong>.&nbsp; Is obscenity protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech/expression?&nbsp; And, what is obscene?</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Background</span></strong>.&nbsp; These two consolidated cases involve convictions for making, keeping, or selling obscene materials.&nbsp; Those convicted appealed and claimed that the laws violated their First Amendment rights.&nbsp; The Supreme Court refused to invalidate the laws outright; but, instead, created a standard for which obscenity could be judged.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Court's Analysis</span></strong>.&nbsp; The Court was clear that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment.&nbsp; Obscenity lacks any redeeming social importance which is demonstrated by the fact that every state and the federal government had laws regulating obscene materials.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;">The Court turned to the question of what is obscene.&nbsp; Obscene cannot mean just sex.&nbsp; Obscene is dealing with sex in a manner that appeals to prurient interests.&nbsp; Prurient interests&nbsp;are those&nbsp;having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts; an itching or longing of lewd and lascivious desires.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;">For clarity, the Supreme Court created its first standard for obscenity:&nbsp; "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests."</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 110%;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Afterword</span></strong>.&nbsp; These consolidated cases begins a fun and interesting tale of the Supreme Court determining what is exactly obscene, or as Justice Harlan claimed, "the intractable obscenity problem."</span></p>]]></content></entry></feed>