ROTH V. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

CAPTION: ROTH V. UNITED STATES 354 U.S. 476 (1957) JUDICIAL HISTORY: Found guilty in trial court on 26-count indictment and sentenced to 5 years in prison with $5,000 fine. Roth appealed and Court of Appeals upheld conviction. Appealed then to the Court and certiorari was granted. FACTS: Roth was a New Yorker who published/sold books, photos, magazines that contained obscene material. He had done several stints in jail for similar instances since the 1920’s. He had flagrantly violated international copyright understandings. In this case, he was accused of sending “obscene, indecent, and filthy matter” through the mail. Among these was circular advertising Photo and Body, Good Times, and American Aphrodite Number 13. At trial, judge defined obscenity as material that “must be calculated to debauch minds/morals of those into whose hands it may fall and that test in each case is the effect of the book, picture/publication considered as whole, not upon any particular class, but upon all those whom it is likely to reach. In other words, determine its impact on avg. person in community. ISSUE(S): Do Freedom of Speech protections of the 1st amendment extend to material that is considered to be obscene? REASONING: 1. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 2. Regina v. Hicklin 3. Beauharnais v. Illinois ANALYSIS: Departing from the traditional common law rule, Brennan constructed a narrower definition of obscenity. He stated that contemporary community standards should be applied to determine whether the average person (rather than children) would find that the work's dominant theme (rather than individual passages) appealed to the prurient interest. Such material would need to be completely without redeeming social value to be classified as obscenity. This definition still did not protect the actions of the defendants under the First Amendment or mandate invalidating the laws as unconstitutional. (Brennan) Although he agreed with the majority that the First Amendment does not shield obscenity, Warren felt that Brennan used overly vague language that could make the majority's holding apply too broadly. (Warren, Concurring) Harlan argued that only Alberts' conviction should be sustained, since he believed that state governments have much greater authority to outlaw obscenity than the federal government does. (Harlan II, Dissent) These Justices felt that both convictions should be struck down, since obscenity should not be considered a categorical exception to First Amendment protections. (Black; Douglas, Dissenting)

CONCLUSION: Affirmed judgment of lower court. Statutes applied here do not offend constitutional safeguards for 1st amendment freedoms or fail to give adequate notice of what is prohibited. SIGNIFICANCE: Est. the “Roth” test – whether average person applying contemporary community standards, dominant theme taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests. Obscenity is not protected speech....