Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Roth V. United States
Transcript of Roth V. United States
- Material which tend to "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was deemed "obscene" and could be banned on that basis.
Roth Convicted! (1957)
-sending of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail for advertising and selling a publication called American Aphrodite containing literary erotica and nude photography. THE END...? The Court repudiated the Hicklin test and defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" to the "average person, applying contemporary community standards." Al Hsu Roth V. United States Arggggg u men DECIDE!!! YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!! Main Argument: Does Freedom of Speech regulate obscene materials? Or is it protected? How is obscene defined? http://www.therightcontext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/American-Eagle.jpg ROTH- FREEEEEEDOOOOMMM
COURT- Flithy PIG! Give us freedom or give us death! Miller v. California (1973)
- Five-person majority superseding the Roth test. Justice Brennan- abandoned the Roth test and argued that "no formulation of this Court, the Congress, or the States can adequately distinguish obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment from protected expression." Justices JUSTICE BRENNAN
-The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
"These include the lewd and obscene. . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ..."
We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.
CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN- Concur
engaged in the commercial exploitation of the morbid and shameful craving for materials with prurient effect.
JUSTICE HARLAN- Dissenting
1. result in a loosening of the tight reins which state and federal courts should hold upon the enforcement of obscenity- everyone had different opinions; resolve constitutional problems before it without making its own independent judgment upon the character of the material upon which these convictions were based
2. fails to discriminate between the different factors which are involved in the constitutional adjudication of state and federal obscenity cases- we balance the power of a State in this field against the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in the other, the power of the Federal Government against the limitations of the First Amendment. I deal with this subject more particularly later
3. relevant distinctions between the two obscenity statutes here involved, and the Court's own definition of "obscenity," are ignored- in California, the book must have a "tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers"; under the federal statute, it must tend "to stir sexual impulses and lead to sexually impure thoughts. Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas- Dissenting Cites "Roth v. United States - 354 U.S. 476 (1957)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.