Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Obscenity law has been criticized in the following areas: [12] Federal law forbids obscenity in certain contexts (such as broadcast); [13] however, the law does not define the term. [citation needed] The U.S. Supreme Court similarly has had difficulty defining the term. In Miller v.
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. [citation needed] The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the third prong is based on "whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole". [5] For legal scholars, several issues are important.
Obscenity law has been criticized in the following areas: [35] The U.S. Supreme Court has had difficulty defining the term. In Miller v. California, the court bases its definition to two hypothetical entities, "contemporary community standards" and "reasonable persons". Legislatures have had similar problems defining the term.
This distinct definition has been narrowed by court rulings to a synonym for obscene. [ 33 ] [ 34 ] [ 35 ] The term obscene is not defined in the actual text of Comstock Act, nor is it defined in the text for much of any of U.S. obscenity law, but the Miller test provides the most current definition used by courts when judging obscenity.
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 ...
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]
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]
Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld that states could make laws limiting the distribution of obscene material, provided that these laws were consistent with the Miller test for obscene material established by the Supreme Court in Miller v.