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 ...
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.
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 ...
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]
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.
The 4th Circuit rejected that claim. "Stanley's holding was a narrow one, focusing only on the possession of obscene materials in the privacy of one's home," the majority said. "The Court's ...
Some subsidiary components of this rule may permit private possession of obscene materials at one's home. [56] Additionally, the phrase "appeals to the prurient interest" is limited to appeals to a "shameful or morbid interest in sex". [57] [58]
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.