Roth v. United States
| Roth v. United States | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 22, 1957 Decided June 24, 1957 |
|
| Full case name | Samuel Roth v. United States |
| Citations | 354 U.S. 476 (more)
77 S. Ct. 1304; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 587; 14 Ohio Op. 2d 331; 1 Media L. Rep. 1375
|
| Prior history | Cert. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment; more strictly defined "obscene". | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Whittaker |
| Concurrence | Warren (in the judgment of the court only) |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black |
|
Superseded by
|
|
| Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) | |
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Miller v. California, was a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.
Under the common law rule that prevailed before Roth, articulated most famously in the 1868 English case Regina v. Hicklin, any material that tended to "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was deemed "obscene" and could be banned on that basis. Thus, works by Balzac, Flaubert, James Joyce and D. H. Lawrence were banned based on isolated passages and the effect they might have on children.
Samuel Roth, who ran a literary business in New York City, 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. David Alberts, who ran a mail-order business from Los Angeles, was convicted under a California statute for publishing pictures of "nude and scantily-clad women." The Court granted certiorari and affirmed both convictions.
Roth came down as a 6–3 decision, with the opinion of the Court authored by William J. Brennan, Jr.. 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." Only material meeting this test could be banned as "obscene." However, Brennan reaffirmed that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and thus upheld the convictions of Roth and Alberts for publishing and sending obscene material through the mail.
...
Wikipedia