|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... The topic of free speech had always been controversial in the history of the United States, especially the topic of obscenity. The courts have had trouble defining obscenity for years. ... The precedent of deciding what is and is not obscene had been laid down through several court cases.
In one of the earliest obscenity case, Roth v. The United States (1957), Sam Roth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity stature. The Court held that obscurity was not “within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press. ... ” Obscenity was to be decided on by the average person (juries) “applying contemporary community standards,” on whether the “the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. ... California redefined obscenity in 1973. ... The case made its way to the Supreme Court. ... The Court decided that freedom of speech does not protect obscene material and that such speech could be regulated by the state under certain circumstances known as the “Three-Pronged Test.” The test included the following guidelines: whether the work taken as a whole appealed “to a prurient interest in sex, showed “patently offensive” sexual conduct that was specifically defined by and obscenity law, and if the work as a whole lack “serious literary artistic, political, or scientific value.
Approximate Word count = 1074
Approximate Pages = 4.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|