The Limits on Obscenity 1957
The Limits on Obscenity 1957
Roth v. United States (1957)
Roth v. US is a 1957 Supreme Court case holding that indecency isn’t safeguarded by the First Amendment. Track down the full assessment here.
It has since been supplanted by Miller v. California, which made a three-section standard to decide if the First Amendment safeguards the profane discourse.
Here, the offended party, Roth, worked a book-selling business in New York and was indicted under a government resolution disallowing the mailing of “each disgusting, scurrilous, lewd, or foul book, flyer, picture, paper, letter, composing, print, or other distribution of a revolting person.” He tested the administrative rule for disregarding the First Amendment, contending that vulgar discourse ought to be secured. The Court rejected Roth, observing that vulgarity isn’t safeguarded by the First Amendment.
Equity Brennan, composing for the court, contemplated that all things considered and at that point, essentially all states limited vulgarity here and there. Likewise, limitations on discourse managing sex in a way interesting to lewd interest was ordinarily acknowledged, and limitations on indecency are equivalent. Equity Douglas contradicted, contending that the Court’s attention on the immaculateness of the contemplations the discourse ingrains in the crowd is excessively wide.
SEE ALSO:
Obscenity and the Comstock Act (1873);
Censorship and the Hays Office (1921);
Censorship and Ulysses (1933);
A New Obscenity Standard (1973);
The FCC and Filthy Words (1978);
The Communications Decency Act (1997).
SOURCES: