 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Roth v. United States: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|facts=Bookstore owners in the states of New York & California were being prosecuted for selling books that contained erotic stories or nude photos. | |facts=Bookstore owners in the states of New York & California were being prosecuted for selling books that contained erotic stories or nude photos. | ||
|procedural_history='''Roth''' was convicted of obscenity charges in the Southern District of New York. | |procedural_history='''Roth''' was convicted of obscenity charges in the Southern District of New York. | ||
|issues=Is obscenity protected by the [[1st Amendment]]? | |||
|rule=Whether "applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest." | |rule=Whether "applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest." | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
Revision as of 20:12, February 11, 2023
| Roth v. United States | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 24, 1957 |
| Followed | Miller v. California |
Facts
Bookstore owners in the states of New York & California were being prosecuted for selling books that contained erotic stories or nude photos.
Procedural History
Roth was convicted of obscenity charges in the Southern District of New York.
Issues
Is obscenity protected by the 1st Amendment?
Rule
Whether "applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest."
