| dbo:abstract
|
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court, in an opinion by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. created a test to determine what constituted obscene material: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the material appeals to a prurient interest in sex, and whether the material was utterly without redeeming social value. Although the Court upheld Roth’s conviction and allowed some obscenity prosecutions, it drastically loosened obscenity laws. The decision dissatisfied both social conservatives who thought that it had gone too far in tolerating sexual imagery, and liberals who felt that it infringed on the rights of consenting adults. The decision was superseded by Miller v. California which removed the “utterly without redeeming social value” test, and replaced it with without “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” In that case, Justice Brennan dissented, repudiating his previous position in Roth, arguing that states could not ban the sale, advertisement, or distribution of obscene materials to consenting adults. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 9665 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-04-22 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Roth v. United States, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:date
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-24 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- David S. Alberts v. California (en)
- Samuel Roth v. United States; (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment; more strictly defined "obscene." (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
| |
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Whittaker (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Roth v. United States (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:reason
|
- what is "the Warren Court"?? (en)
- why "as"? (en)
- why "either"?? (en)
|
| dbp:superseded
|
- Miller v. California, (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court, in an opinion by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. created a test to determine what constituted obscene material: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the material appeals to a prurient interest in sex, and whether the material was utterly without redeeming social value. Although the Court upheld Roth’s conviction and allowed some obscenity prosecutions, it drastically loosened obscenity laws. The decision dissatisfied both social conservatives who t (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Roth v. United States (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- David S. Alberts v. California (en)
- Samuel Rothv. United States; (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |