Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited. [1] [2]
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity as material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". [1]
The court drew a sharp distinction between speech that meets the legal definition of "obscene" and speech that is "indecent" (sexually charged but not rising to the level of "obscene"). The court held that obscene speech could be restricted, but that merely indecent speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court also recognized a real ...
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial ...
Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity under the First Amendment.. The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v.United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.
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 Supreme Court primarily addressed the matter of whether government regulation of broadcasting content comports with the free speech rights of broadcast operators under the First Amendment. [7] The high court ruled 5–4 in favor of the FCC, holding that the Carlin routine was "indecent but not obscene". Therefore, the Commission could not ...
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v.California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. [1]