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. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Criminal justice, victims rights laws go into effect Jan. 1 ...

    www.aol.com/news/criminal-justice-victims-rights...

    (The Center Square) – Around a dozen new laws go into effect Jan. 1 making changes to Illinois’ criminal justice system. Beginning New Year’s Day, law enforcement training will have a course ...

  6. 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.

  7. 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]

  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. Legal objections to pornography in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_objections_to...

    In the United States, distribution of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" materials is a federal crime. [1] The determination of what is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" is up to a jury in a trial, which must apply the Miller test; however, due to the prominence of pornography in most communities most pornographic materials are not considered "patently offensive" in the Miller test.