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.
Procedural burden on state in seizure of obscene material Hamilton v. Alabama: 368 U.S. 52 (1961) Absence of defendant's counsel at the time of his arraignment violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Hoyt v. Florida: 368 U.S. 57 (1961) all-male jury in a woman's murder trial did not violate Fourteenth ...
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 ...
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.
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]
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 ...
In Washington, D.C., where the federal government has direct jurisdiction, the act also made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to sell, give away, or have in possession any "obscene" publication. [35] Half of the states passed similar anti-obscenity statutes that also banned possession and sale of obscene materials. [36]