enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States obscenity law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

    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 ...

  3. President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Commission_on...

    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]

  4. Legal objections to pornography in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_objections_to...

    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.

  5. Obscenity - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

    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 ...

  6. Osborne v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_v._Ohio

    Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. [1]

  7. A Constitutionally Dubious California Bill Would Ban ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/constitutionally-dubious...

    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 ...

  8. School librarians in Ohio could face felony charges if kids ...

    www.aol.com/school-librarians-ohio-could-face...

    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 ...

  9. Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and...

    The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials.

  1. Related searches illegal possession of obscene material in chicago state of emergency update

    obscene law in the usobscenity laws in the us