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

    United States, 165 U.S. 486 (1897), which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivering a newspaper called the Chicago Dispatch, which contained "obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials". Another case was A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v.

  3. Roth v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v.California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. [1]

  4. Obscenity - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

    The classification of "obscene" and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text-only stories starting with Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897), which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the Chicago Dispatch, containing "obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials", which was ...

  5. United States v. One Book Called Ulysses - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Book...

    One Book Called Ulysses, 5 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933), affirmed in United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce (Random House, Inc., Claimant) , 72 F. 705 (1934) is a landmark decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case dealing with freedom of expression .

  6. Rosen v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosen_v._United_States

    Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of obscenity.In a decision written by Justice Harlan, the Court upheld the conviction of the defendant to 13 months hard labor and a fine of $1 for allegedly using the United States Postal Service to send material that was deemed "obscene, lewd and lascivious".

  7. 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 ...

  8. Ginzburg v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginzburg_v._United_States

    The First Amendment puts protection for expressive content in terms that are both sweeping and absolute: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" [2] Despite this broad protection, the roots of U.S. attempts to legally suppress obscenity extend back to the English common law offense of obscene libel and censorship of stage plays by the Master of the Revels.

  9. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!