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. Pornography laws by region - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_laws_by_region

    The selling and distribution of pornographic material is illegal in India under section 294, 295, 296. [65] The distribution, sale, or circulation of obscene materials and the selling of pornographic content to any person under age 20 years are illegal under section 293 and IT Act-67B. [66]

  4. President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Commission_on...

    Kemp and Hamling were eventually sentenced to prison for "conspiracy to mail obscene material," but both served only the federal minimum. [10] [11] Hamling received a four-year regular adult sentence. [12] Earl Kemp received a sentence of three years and one day. [12] The report as published by Greenleaf was not found to be obscene. [13]

  5. Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional...

    Materials that fall within all three prongs may be declared obscene in a court of law. [135] [136] By the statute's own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be "obscene" or "lacking in serious value".

  6. Initiative to stamp out obscene material in schools caught in ...

    www.aol.com/news/initiative-stamp-obscene...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us

  7. United States v. Williams (2008) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Williams...

    United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography [1] (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child ...

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

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

    This provision seems constitutionally problematic in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding that the First Amendment bars legislators from criminalizing the mere possession of obscene material.

  9. Library materials in Kentucky are selected at the school level. Decisions are made by school councils of parents and teachers, alongside school leadership and librarians.