Roth v the United States Supreme Court Outline

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 108 | Comments: 0 | Views: 101
of 7
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Roth v. The United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) No. 582 Ar !ed" A#ri$ 22, 1957
%e&ided" '!ne 24, 1957 (1). The defendant was Samuel Roth, of New York City. The Justices who were involved were Justice William J. Brennan, Justice arshall

!arlan, Justice William ". #ou$las, Justice !u$o %. Black, and Chief Justice &arl Warren. The lawyers for the defendant were #avid von '. (l)recht and ". John Ro$$e. The lawyer re*resentin$ the +nited States was Ro$er #. ,isher -./. Samuel Roth owned and o*erated a New York City )ook store. !is method of marketin$ involved mailin$ out su$$estive or *orno$ra*hic advertisement materials to *otential demo$ra*hics. !e was convicted on that $rounds that ,ederal %aw *rohi)its the mailin$ of 0every o)scene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy )ook, *am*hlet, *icture, *a*er, letter, writin$, *rint, or other *u)lication of an indecent character.1 -2/ The first Court that heard this case was in the #istrict Court for the Southern #istrict of New York. Roth was found $uilty u*on four accounts of a 345count indictment for mailin$ o)scene materials -3/. Roth o*ted to a**eal on the $rounds that his conviction was unconstitutional. !is claim was that *orno$ra*hic or se6ually oriented materials were *rotected )y the sco*e of ,reedom of S*eech covered within the ,irst (mendment -2/.

7

Sa(!e$ Roth, A##e$$ant No. 387, %o&)et 24*3*. United States +o!rt o, A##ea$s 2nd +ir&!it Ar !ed" '!ne 6, 1956 %e&ided" Se#te(-er 18, 1956 The +o!rt o, A##ea$s r!$ed to rant Roth a .rit o, +ertiorari. Roth held his $round that his advertisements were covered under ,reedom of S*eech Ri$hts. !is main ar$ument was the use of the word 0filthy.1 Roth claimed that filthy 0*lainly covered se6ual matters8 and the court had no occasion to consider whether filthy mattered of a different character to fall within *rohi)ition.1 !is stance was that it was not for the courts to *rohi)it such material. !owever, the 9ud$e:s o**osition was that 0filthy1 is very clear in its conce*t, and that it did fall into the 9udiciary sco*e of $overnance. !e stated, 0;,ilthy: is as clear and easily understanda)le )y the 9ury as the terms ;o)scene: and ;lewd: already committed to its care.1 (lso, the 9ud$e claimed that neither the defendant, nor the attorney $ave contention to this claim. !e further stated, 0Since no re<uest for se*arate verdicts or for withdrawal of this issue from the 9ury was made, the conviction must stand as su**orted )y the clear evidence of o)scenity.1 Never5the5less, Roth was $ranted his a**eal on January 7=, 7>.2 -?/. "n June 3=, 7>.2, in the case of Roth v. The United States No. [email protected], The Su*reme Court ruled that o)scene material is not covered within the sco*e of the ,irst (mendment. The Su*reme Court vote was 4 5?8 denyin$ the claim of ,irst (mendment *rotection -./.

3

The case was heard simultaneously to the case of Alberts v. California ?.= +.S. =24 No. 47 -7>.2/. That case involved the California law *rohi)itin$ the sale and advertisin$ of o)scene )ooks, which was ruled denial of ,irst (mendment *rotection, as well -4/. ,or the ma9ority, Justice Brennan held that historical evidence showed that the ,oundin$ ,athers created the ,irst (mendment only to *rotect the domains of *olitical, social and reli$ious s*eech. This was )ased on that fact that the ori$inal states *assed laws that restricted o*en o)scenity. !is *osition claimed that *rior cases $enerally ruled o)scenity was not free s*eech, since it does not consist of any value within the free market *lace of ideas -4/. !e stated, 0The *rotection $iven s*eech and *ress was fashioned to assure the unfettered interchan$e of ideas for )rin$in$ a)out *olitical and social chan$es desired )y the Aeo*le.1 -7/ Justice Brennan went on to im*ly that se6 and o)scenity are not one5and5the5same. !e claimed that ideas *ertainin$ to se6 do have ,irst (mendment *rotection. !e e6*lained that the difference is that the s*eech is considered o)scene if it is conveyed in an attention5 $ra))in$ vul$ar manner8 in which case it falls into the sco*e that is not covered )y the ,irst (mendment *rotection -2/. !e stated, 0")scene material is material which deals with se6 in a manner a**ealin$ to *rurient interest5 i.e., material havin$ tendency to e6cite lustful thou$hts.1 -7/ (lso, the Court re9ected the a**ellant:s due *rocess o)9ections, since they )elieved that the trial courts *ro*erly 9ud$ed the standard for o)scenity. (fter all, the issue was not for the Court to set the $uidelines for o)scenity -4/. Justice Brennan stated, 0Bn these cases, )oth trial courts sufficiently followed the *ro*er standard and used the *ro*er definition of o)scenity.1 -7/
?

Chief Justice Warren concurred with the ma9ority rulin$, however he felt it was necessary to limit the sco*e of the court:s o*inion. !e stated, 0We are o*eratin$ in a field of e6*ression and )ecause )road lan$ua$e used here may eventually )e a**lied to the art and sciences and freedom of communication8 $enerally, B would limit our decision.1 -7/ Bn retros*ect, while Justice !arlan had concurred with the (l)erts case decision, he dissented with the Roth case decision. !is *osition was that the elastic clause should retract itself in this matter, renderin$ more 9udicial involvement to the states: res*onsi)ility. (lso, he )elieved that each o)scenity work should )e determined se*arately -4/. !is statement was, 0Such *owers as the ,ederal 'overnment has in this field are )ut incidental to its other *owers, here the *ostal *ower, and one not of the same nature as those *osed )y the states which )ear direct res*onsi)ility for the *rotection of the local moral fa)ric.1 -7/ Conclusively, )oth Justice #ou$las and Justice Black dissented in )oth cases. They )elieved that o)scenity did fall into the sco*e of ,reedom of S*eech. They held that the 9ud$ment was )ased u*on reactive thou$hts to the messa$e received )y the readers. They ar$ued that se6ual thou$hts are a *art of human nature and that one shouldn:t )e *unished for tri$$erin$ thou$hts, as if they were *hysical actions. (lso, they contended that the rulin$ could e6*and to other *otentially unnecessary rulin$s that would violate the ,irst (mendment -2/. Their statement was 0By these standards *unishment is inflicted for thou$hts *rovoked, not for overt acts, nor for antisocial conduct. This test cannot )e s<uared with our decisions under the ,irst (mendment.1 -7/ Roth v. The United States was the catalyst for settin$ the definition of o)scenity in local standards. (fter the case:s rulin$, o)scenity cases would $o on to na$ the Court for another fourteen years. (lthou$h the ,irst (mendment had the initial intent of *rotectin$
=

*olitical and reli$ious s*eech, it has since )een e6tended to *rotectin$ the s*eech in which some would deem as morally wron$. This case would )ecome the )asis for another landmark caseC Miller v California -7>2?/. This $ave more *ower to the states concernin$ cases of o)scenity. The rulin$ added that materials 0which *ortray se6ual conduct in a *atently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have scientific value.1 -=/ This case determined the casin$ and restrictions of *orno$ra*hic materials in )ook stores or convenient stores. (nother case that would add to o)scenity standards and violations was the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation -7>[email protected]/, which involved the Aacifica radio station *layin$ the 'eor$e Carlin monolo$ue Seven Dirty Words You Can t Say !n Radio. The Su*reme Court ruled that the ,CC can sus*end radio licenses to stations that use o)scene words since radio is the least *rotected )y the ,irst (mendment due to its o*en accessi)ility. Bt held that a nuisance which is deemed as 0o)scene, indecent, or *rofane1 may 0)e merely a ri$ht thin$ in the wron$ *lace.1 -=/ Bndecency and o)scenity rules were restricted even ti$hter after the accident involvin$ the e6*osure of Janet Jackson:s )reast durin$ the 3DD= Su*er Bowl !alftime Show. (fter that incident, Con$ress voted to increase violation fines )y ten times the *revious amount -=/. The ne6t landmark Su*reme Court rulin$ is any station:s or *u)lication:s $uess.

.

Bibliography
7.htt*CEEcaselaw.l*.findlaw.comEc$i5)inE$etcase.*lFcourtGusHinvolG=24 3.htt*CEElawschool.courtroomview.comEactIcasesE>2225roth5v5united5states
?.htt*CEEo*en9urist.or$E3?2Ef3dE2>4Eunited5states5v5roth

=.Strau)haar, Jose*h, Ro)ert %aRose, %ucinda #aven*ort.

edia NowC +nderstandin$

edia, Culture, and Technolo$y 4th ed. BostonC Wadsworth, 3DD> *$C [email protected], ==>, =.D ..htt*CEEwww.firstamdenmentcenter.or$Efacli)raryEcase.as*6FcaseGRothIvIus . 4.htt*CEEwww.novel$uide.comEaEdiscoverEeamcID.EeamcID.ID33D?.html 2.htt*CEEwww.<uim)ee.comEinde6.*h*E<uim)eEcaseIdetailERothJ3DJ3Dv. J3DJ3DJ3D+nitedJ3DStatesE2D2D>@

4

2

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close