 |
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 |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=June 24, 1957 | |date=June 24, 1957 | ||
|subject=First Amendment | |subject=First Amendment | ||
|followed=Miller v. California | |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. | |facts=Bookstore owners in the states of New York & California were being prosecuted for selling books that contained erotic stories or nude photos. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
|issues=Is obscenity protected by the [[1st Amendment]]? | |issues=Is obscenity protected by the [[1st Amendment]]? | ||
|holding=Obscenity isn't protected by the [[First Amendment]] as either speech or press. | |holding=Obscenity isn't protected by the [[First Amendment]] as either speech or press. | ||
|reasons=The justices cited the British case ''[[Regina v. Hicklin]]'' ([https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/476 1868]) which stated that any material that tended to "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene. | |||
|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 | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/roth-v-united-states | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/roth-v-united-states | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/ | |link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/ | ||
Latest revision as of 03:35, July 14, 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?
Holding
Obscenity isn't protected by the First Amendment as either speech or press.
Reasons
The justices cited the British case Regina v. Hicklin (1868) which stated that any material that tended to "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene.
Rule
Whether "applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest."
