Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The statute was originally sponsored by State Senator Tom Butler of Madison, Alabama as a measure to prohibit nude dancing. [3] It prohibits "any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary ...
The sale and distribution of obscene materials had been prohibited in most American states since the early 19th century, and by federal law since 1873. Adoption of obscenity laws in the United States at the federal level in 1873 was largely due to the efforts of Anthony Comstock, who created and led the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.
Pryor, 229 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2000), [1] rehearing denied, 240 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2001) [2] was a federal lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged an Alabama law criminalizing the sale of sex toys in the state. In 1998, a statute enacted by the legislature of the State of Alabama amended the obscenity provisions of the Alabama Code to make the ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
A law punishing certain classes of criminals with sterilization is unconstitutional. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) *. 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".
A new Ohio bill would allow prosecutors to charge school librarians with a felony if children access an "obscene" book or movie. Current Ohio law prohibits selling and distributing "obscene ...
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 ...
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 ...