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 ...
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.
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.
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 ...
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973), was an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court that considered the question of whether the First Amendment required that citizens be allowed to import obscene material for their personal and private use at home, which was already held to be protected several years earlier.
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 ...
An OKC man already facing one child pornography case has been sentenced to 40 years in federal prison for possession and distribution in another case.
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.