
	Where results make sense

Topic: Roth v United States

Related Topics

List of United States Supreme Court cases

State supreme court

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Supreme Court of the United States

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

United States Bill of Rights

Supreme Court of California

United States Constitution

First Amendment

Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Miller test

Chief Justice of the United States

	Roth
		United States, 229 U.S. [n30] In summary, then, we hold that these statutes, applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, do not offend constitutional safeguards against convictions based upon protected material, or fail to give men in acting adequate notice of what is prohibited.
		United States, 341 U.S. This approach is typified by the concurring opinion of Judge Frank in the Roth case, 237 F.2d at 801.
		United States, our grant of certiorari was limited to the question of the constitutionality of the statute, and did not encompass the correctness of the definition of "obscenity" adopted by the trial judge as a matter of statutory construction.
	members.aol.com /dcspohr/lenny/rothvsus.htm (8770 words)

	Roth v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Samuel Roth, who ran a literary business in New York, was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing the sending of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail for advertising and selling a publication called American Aphrodite, ("A Quarterly for the Fancy-Free") containing literary erotica and nude photography.
		Roth came down as a 6-3 decision, with the opinion of the Court authored by William J. Brennan, Jr.
		Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented in Roth, involving a federal statute, but concurred in Alberts, involving a state law, on the grounds that while states had broad power to prosecute obscenity, the federal government did not.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Roth_v._United_States (660 words)

	Roth v. United States, 1957
		United States, 229 U.S. In summary, then, we hold that these statutes, applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, do not offend constitutional safeguards against convictions based upon protected material, or fail to give men in acting adequate notice of what is prohibited.
		United States, 249 U.S. This approach is typified by the opinion of Judge Bok (written prior to this Court's opinion in GO"Dennis v.
		United States, 341 U.S. 494) in Commonwealth v.
	www.lectlaw.com /files/case32.htm (9099 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		United States, supra, at 489, not "national standards." The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, Orange County, California, is vacated and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the First Amendment standards established by this opinion.
		United States, 354 U.S., it ruled that "[o]bscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." Id., at 487.
		United States, 383 U.S., a publisher was sent to prison, not for the kind of books and periodicals he sold, but for the manner in which the publications were advertised.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=15 (8937 words)

	JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		It should also be recognized that the Roth standard requires in the first instance a finding that the material "goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters." This was a requirement of the Model Penal Code test that we approved in Roth, 354 U.S., at 487, n.
		United States, 354 U.S. The definition enunciated in that case has generated much legal speculation as well as further judicial interpretation by state and federal courts.
		United States, 354 U.S. Footnote 2] In the instant case, for example, the advertisements published to induce the public to view the motion picture provide some evidence of the film's dominant theme: "When all conventions explode.
	www.aegis.com /law/SCt/Decisions/1964/378US184.html (5375 words)

	United States v. Ferber
		Thirty-five States and the United States Congress have also passed legislation prohibiting the distribution of such materials; 20 States prohibit the distribution of material depicting children engaged in sexual conduct without requiring that the material be legally obscene.
		state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
		United States, 436 U.S. Thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia have either legislatively adopted or judicially incorporated the Miller test for obscenity.
	www.ci.keene.nh.us /police/ferber.html (9648 words)

	Alexander v United States
		United States, 354 U.S. And the majority is correct to note that we have upheld stringent fines and jail terms as punishments for violations of the federal obscenity laws.
		State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 161 (1939) ("In every case, therefore, where legislative abridgement of [First Amendment] rights is asserted, the courts should be astute to examine the effect of the challenged legislation").
		The government's stated purpose under RICO, to destroy or incapacitate the offending enterprise, bears a striking resemblance to the motivation for the state nuisance statute the Court struck down as an impermissible prior restraint in Near.
	web.utk.edu /~scheb/alexander.html (8830 words)

	Roth v. United States
		Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes.
		This rejection for that reason is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations, in the obscenity laws of all of the 48 States, and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956.
		In Roth, the trial judge instructed the jury: "The words 'obscene, lewd and lascivious' as used in the law, signify that form of immorality which has relation to sexual impurity and has a tendency to excite lustful thoughts." (Emphasis added.) In Alberts, the trial judge applied the test laid down in People v.
	www2.bc.edu /~herbeck/cyberlaw.roth.html (2250 words)

	Roth v. United States
		United States in the canon of constitutional law.
		Re-viewing history: the use of the past as negative precedent in United States v.
		U.S. Senator William V. Roth (R-DE) Joins PFPC Officials to Celebrate The Second Anniversary of the Roth IRA.
	www.infoplease.com /ce6/history/A0842509.html (223 words)

	ThisNation.com--New York Times Co. v. United States
		United States, 354 U.S. Here there is no question but that the material sought to be suppressed is within the protection of the First Amendment; the only question is whether, notwithstanding that fact, its publication may be enjoined for a time because of the presence of an overwhelming national interest.
		If the United States were to have judgment under such a standard in these cases, our decision would be of little guidance to other courts in other cases, for the material at issue here would not be available from the Court's opinion or from public records, nor would it be published by the press.
		I believe that the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should [403 U.S. 713, 748] be affirmed and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should be reversed insofar as it remands the case for further hearings.
	www.thisnation.com /library/nytimesus.html (12338 words)

	Ginzburg v. United States (1965) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		United States, 354 U.S. I believe that under this statute the Federal Government is constitutionally restricted to banning from the mails only "hardcore pornography," see my separate opinion in Roth, supra, at 507, and my dissenting opinion in A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs" v.
		Were a State to enact a "panderer" statute under its police power, I have little doubt that--subject to clear drafting to avoid attacks on vagueness and equal protection grounds--such a statute would be constitutional.
		United States, 354 U.S. In that case the Court held that "obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." [499] Id., at 485.
	www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/ginzburg.html (10025 words)

	Roth v. United States (1957)
		Petitioner Roth was indicted for unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly mailing obscene material that was calculated to corrupt and debauch the minds and morals of those to whom it was sent.
		In final analysis, the problem presented by these cases is how far, and on what terms, the state and federal governments have power to punish individuals for disseminating books considered to be undesirable because of their [497] nature or supposed deleterious effect upon human conduct.
		It seems to me clear that it is not irrational, in our present state of knowledge, to consider that pornography can induce a type of sexual conduct which a State may deem obnoxious to the [502] moral fabric of society.
	www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/roth.html (8936 words)

	United States
		The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area.
		The conterminous (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) United States stretches across central North America from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west, and from Canada on the north to Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico on the south.
		The state of Alaska is located in extreme NW North America between the Arctic and Pacific oceans and is bordered by Canada on the east.
	www.infoplease.com /ce6/us/A0850088.html (320 words)

	AllRefer.com - Roth v. United States, Court Case (Court Cases) - Encyclopedia
		United States, case decided in 1957 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
		On appeal his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
		In later decisions in 1973 and 1974 the Court held that community standards need not be national; a state can establish its own standards if it defines them explicitly.
	reference.allrefer.com /encyclopedia/R/RothvUS.html (211 words)

	ROTH v
		This rejection for [354 U.S. 476, 485] that reason is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations, in the obscenity laws of all of the 48 States, and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956.
		It is strenuously urged that these obscenity statutes offend the constitutional guaranties because they punish [354 U.S. incitation to impure sexual thoughts, not shown to be related to any overt antisocial conduct which is or may be incited in the persons stimulated to such thoughts.
		That there may be marginal cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on [354 U.S. 476, 492] which a particular fact situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense.
	www.rvc.cc.il.us /faclink/pruckman/LEG/cases/roth.htm (2367 words)

	GigaLaw.com: A Review of the Law of Obscenity for Webmasters and Others (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		In this case, Roth was convicted at trial for receiving pornography in the mail.
		United States was that it made each community the arbiter of what material was to be denied the protection of the Constitution.
		And, and as you can imagine, since these community standards did not work well in the analog world of the early 1960s, they certainly are not likely to be a solution for Internet communities, which exist in cyberspace and are not restricted to a particular geographic region.
	www.gigalaw.com /articles/2000-all/morris-2000-07-all.html (1246 words)

	Roth v. United States (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
		In the Roth case, the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy.
		I, § 8, cl. 7, and it [p478] does not unconstitutionally encroach upon the powers reserved to the States by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0476_ZS.html (495 words)

	Cristina Popescu - Obscenity in Roth v. United States (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		united states, 354 U.S. The question in this case was whether a federal law prohibiting the sale of obscene materials violated the First Amendment and restricted the freedom of expression.
		Roth operated a book business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute.
		In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." The Court rejected Roth's First Amendment defense, and found that obscene speech is "utterly without redeeming social importance."
	iml.jou.ufl.edu /projects/Fall02/Popescu/cr_obs_roth.htm (164 words)

	Ginzburg v United States
		Evidence that the petitioners deliberately represented the accused publications as erotically arousing and commercially exploited them as erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal amply supported the trial court's determination that the material was obscene under the standards of the Roth case,.
		The Handbook purports to be a sexual autobiography detailing with complete candor the author's sexual experiences from age 3 to age 36.
		[383 U.S. of the materials involved, the fact that they originate or are used as a subject of pandering is relevant to the application of the Roth test.
	www.fordhamprep.com /socstud/Cases/ginsburg.htm (880 words)

	Roth V. United States
		Browse: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Help
		Question.com > Encyclopedia > Social Sciences and the Law > Law > Court Cases > Roth V. United States
		Browse Encyclopedia: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
	www.question.com /link/RothvUS.html (200 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)