| Abstrakt: |
In the landmark case of Roth v. United States (1957), Roth v. United States (1957)[Roth v United States] the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment First Amendment;and obscenity[obscenity] did not protect obscene materials. Thereafter, the problem became how to define “obscene,” so that these materials could be regulated while protected materials, even pornographic ones, remained free. For a time, the explicit test was whether the publication was “utterly without redeeming social value,” part of the 1966 definition in the “Fanny Hill” case, Memoirs v. Massachusetts. Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)[Memoirs v Massachusetts] Because almost everything can be construed to have at least some social value, the Memoirs test was a liberal standard that allowed regulation of only the hardest-core obscenity. [kw]U.S. Supreme Court Supports Local Obscenity Laws (June 21, 1973) [kw]Supreme Court Supports Local Obscenity Laws, U.S. (June 21, 1973) [kw]Court Supports Local Obscenity Laws, U.S. Supreme (June 21, 1973) [kw]Obscenity Laws, U.S. Supreme Court Supports Local (June 21, 1973) [kw]Laws, U.S. Supreme Court Supports Local Obscenity (June 21, 1973) Supreme Court, U.S.;obscenity Obscenity laws;and U.S. Supreme Court[US Supreme Court] Community standards, and obscenity laws [c]Laws, acts, and legal history;June 21, 1973: U.S. Supreme Court Supports Local Obscenity Laws[0970] [c]Publications;June 21, 1973: U.S. Supreme Court Supports Local Obscenity Laws[0970] |
