enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States obscenity law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

    Georgia that state laws making mere private possession of obscene material a crime are invalid, [58] at least in the absence of an intention to sell, expose, or circulate the material. Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that under Stanley there is a constitutional right to provide obscene material for private use [ 59 ...

  3. Pope v. Illinois - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_v._Illinois

    Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1987. In this case, the Court held that the "value" prong, which is the third prong of the Miller test established in Supreme Court's 1973 case Miller v. California, must be assessed based on a "reasonable person" standard.

  4. Stanley v. Georgia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia

    Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

  5. Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and...

    The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials.

  6. United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thirty...

    Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Case history; Prior: Judgment for petitioner, 309 F.Supp 36, (C.D. Cal., 1970)Holding; Federal statute prohibiting importation of obscene material is not overbroad as long as forfeiture proceedings are commenced within 14 days of seizure, nor does First Amendment require exception for importation of such material for private use.

  7. PROTECT Act of 2003 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

    The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors). Minimum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution.

  8. A Constitutionally Dubious California Bill Would Ban ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/constitutionally-dubious...

    Whorley argued that the law's prohibition on receiving obscene images was "facially unconstitutional" because "receiving materials is an incident of their possession, and possession of obscene ...

  9. United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Extreme...

    United States v. Extreme Associates, 431 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2005), is a 2005 U.S. law case revolving around issues of obscenity. Extreme Associates, a pornography company owned by Rob Zicari and his wife Lizzy Borden (also known as Janet Romano), was prosecuted by the federal government for alleged distribution of obscenity across state lines.