<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:30:11 GMT--><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Roth v. United States (1957)</title><link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/</link><description></description><lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:56:34 +0000</lastBuildDate><copyright></copyright><language>en-US</language><generator>Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</generator><item><title>Roth v. United States; Alberts v. California (1957)</title><dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:47:58 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/2010/1/10/roth-v-united-states-alberts-v-california-1957.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">423563:5597680:6288609</guid><description><![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>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.basicallylaw.com/roth-v-united-states-1957/rss-comments-entry-6288609.xml</wfw:commentRss></item></channel></rss>