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: Reargument: Reargument: Case history; Prior: Stanley v. State, 224 Ga. 259, 161 S.E.2d 309 (1968); probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U.S. 819 (1968).: Holding; The First Amendment, as applied to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits making mere private possession of obscene material a crime.
Laws prohibiting the distribution of condoms to married persons are unconstitutional. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)*. Mere possession of obscene material in one's home cannot be made a crime. Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1971) *.
That case did not support a right to import obscene materials for private use. "[A] port of entry is not a traveler's home. His right to be let alone neither prevents the search of his luggage nor the seizure of unprotected, but illegal, materials when his possession of them is discovered during such a search." [16]
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]
This provision seems constitutionally problematic in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding that the First Amendment bars legislators from criminalizing the mere possession of obscene material.
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 ...