Roth v. United States (1957)

Court's Reasoning: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, establishing a crucial legal precedent. The Court ruled that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, it also attempted to define obscenity for the first time, creating the "Roth Test." This test defined obscenity as material that, when viewed by the average person, applying contemporary community standards, appeals to prurient interest. The Court specifically distinguished obscenity from materials that are merely sexually explicit but have redeeming social importance.

Lasting Impact: Roth set the foundation for all subsequent obscenity law. It confirmed that the government has the right to regulate certain sexual expression, but it also created the "redeeming social importance" standard, which proved to be a difficult and vague benchmark for lower courts to apply. The term "contemporary community standards" was also left undefined, creating a significant legal ambiguity.

2. Freedman v. Maryland (1965)

Core Issue: The case challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland law that required film censors to approve movies before they could be publicly shown. Ronald Freedman was convicted for showing a film without first submitting it to the state board of censors. The issue was whether such a licensing scheme constituted an unconstitutional form of prior restraint on speech.

Court's Reasoning: The Court unanimously reversed Freedman's conviction. It did not strike down all film censorship but established a set of strict procedural safeguards that state censorship systems must follow to be constitutional. The Court held that the burden of proving that the film is unprotected obscenity must fall on the censor, not the exhibitor. Furthermore, the censorship system must guarantee a prompt and final judicial decision to determine the validity of the restraint. Without these safeguards, the system would be an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Lasting Impact: Freedman did not redefine obscenity, but it was a landmark case for procedural due process in censorship. It severely limited the power of state and local governments to censor films and other media before they could be shown, effectively shifting the burden of proof from the individual to the government. This decision became a critical protection against arbitrary and lengthy delays in artistic expression.

3. A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (1966)

Core Issue: This case revisited the Roth test's "redeeming social importance" standard. The Massachusetts Attorney General sought to have the book, commonly known as Fanny Hill, declared obscene.

Court's Reasoning: The Supreme Court, in a plurality decision, ruled that the book was not obscene. The Court introduced a three-part test, attempting to clarify the Roth standard. For a work to be found obscene, all three conditions had to be met:

Sample Answer

Case Analysis: Obscenity/Indecency

This analysis will break down four landmark Supreme Court cases concerning obscenity and indecency in the United States. Each summary will focus on the core issues, the Court's reasoning, and the lasting impact of the decision.

1. Roth v. United States (1957)

Core Issue: This case questioned whether the federal obscenity statute, which prohibited the mailing of "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" materials, violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the press. The case stemmed from Samuel Roth's conviction for mailing obscene circulars and books.