Scribd
Upload
24 views1 page

Roth Vs Us Facts of The Case

Roth operated a book-selling business and was convicted under a federal obscenity statute for mailing obscene materials. His case was combined with a similar case from California challenging that state's obscenity law. The Supreme Court held that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. It determined that obscenity is material that appeals to prurient interest and lacks redeeming social value, as judged by contemporary community standards. The Court established this as a valid test for defining obscenity that provides sufficient warning and satisfies due process.

Uploaded by

Bhëdz Savaris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
24 views1 page

Roth Vs Us Facts of The Case

Roth operated a book-selling business and was convicted under a federal obscenity statute for mailing obscene materials. His case was combined with a similar case from California challenging that state's obscenity law. The Supreme Court held that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. It determined that obscenity is material that appeals to prurient interest and lacks redeeming social value, as judged by contemporary community standards. The Court established this as a valid test for defining obscenity that provides sufficient warning and satisfies due process.

Uploaded by

Bhëdz Savaris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

Roth vs us

Facts of the case


Roth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene
circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute. Roth's case was
combined with Alberts v. California, in which a California obscenity law was challenged by
Alberts after his similar conviction for selling lewd and obscene books in addition to composing
and publishing obscene advertisements for his products.

Question
Did either the federal or California's obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of
obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by
the First Amendment?
Conclusion
In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that
obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."
The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every
utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without
redeeming social importance." The Court held that the test to determine obscenity
was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards,
the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."
The Court held that such a definition of obscenity gave sufficient fair warning and
satisfied the demands of Due Process. Brennan later reversed his position on this
issue in Miller v. California (1973).

You might also like