Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. (Superseded by Miller v. California (1973)) One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958) Pro-homosexual writing is not per se obscene. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
Obscenity is defined as material that "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest". One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958) *. Applying the Roth test, the Court rules that homosexual content is not by definition obscene. Poe v.
Adverse possession is a legal concept that occurs when a trespasser, someone with no legal title, can gain legal ownership over a piece of property if the actual owner does not challenge it within ...
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.
Real-estate industry rocked by $1.8 billion verdict finding ‘conspiracy’ to force sellers to pay illegal commission fees Alena Botros, Sydney Lake October 31, 2023 at 8:16 PM
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.
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.