Supreme Court Case: Marvin Miller Vs. California

Libel tort law is defamation to a person’s reputation by print, signs, effigies, pictures, writing or any communication. The California court decided that because this article was

Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. Roth ran a business in New York by selling books, photos, and magazines. Roth was charged with 4 counts for sending inappropriate circulars and an inappropriate book. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Roth’s appeal. Alberts was prosecuted for the sale of lewd books, and for writing inappropriate advertisements within the books. Albert’s conviction was upheld by a lower court. The Court must decide if indecent material is protected by the freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment. All ideas, even the most foolish, controversial, and intolerable, are protected by free speech. The only exception is when they interfere in more important safeties. However, indecency has been demonstrated to have no redeeming

The main issue at hand is whether or nor obscenity is considered speech and if so is it protected speech under the Constitution. I must wager that obscenity is and indeed should be considered speech for the purposes of the Supreme Court in First Amendment matters. As to if it is or should be protected by the constitution is a more difficult question. I believe that a test of reasonableness is sufficient to govern this topic by members of the court. If there is legitimate purpose for material no matter what facilitates its dissemination then there is a compulsory reason for constitutional protection. If not and the main cause of material is to inflict injury on any party including society there is no compelling reason to afford such speech any constitutional protection.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court. Section 225 A (a) (3) (B) bans the distribution of child pornography. This case is to determine if the law violates the First Amendment or Fifth Amendment due process clause. The Court has long decided the inappropriate material is not protected by the First Amendment, Roth V. United States (1957). When explicit material has true value to society it has been held as free speech, Miller v. California (1973). The Court has considered child

Several people challenged the 1996 Communications Decency act. It was put in place to protect minors from material on the internet that was unsuitable for them to be seeing. The act prohibited the transmission of obscene messages and information that describes sexual activities in a manner that was deemed inappropriate by community guidelines. The Court decided that this Act violated the first amendment because it tried to regulate speech without clearly identifying what indecent communications were. The Act failed to determine restrictions on people or time (so it would not impact adults) or prove that the transmission of obscene material is not of social value.

Morality is a virtue that all humans ought to embrace. The different societies where we live in have set standards that provide guidelines that all are to follow. However, with all the set conditions, a section of the population still chose to go astray. Through their actions, verbally and in all manners known to them, this group upholds obscene vices that are a deterrent to the community’s standards of decency (Ryder 210). Obscene practices extend to those materials that are intended to invoke impure sexual thoughts. These materials spread in publications to schools and public libraries at high rates. The question arises that, to what limit should a material be labeled as obscene?

E. Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003(CAN-SPAM), 15 U. S. C. § 103 et seq.

Case 1(Ruggiero 173). We have the debate and Supreme Court ruling in 2002 that stated the ban on ‘virtual child pornography’ was unconstitutional, and in turn, The Federal Child Pornography Prevention Act was overturned. The parties involved are the disgusting, scum of the earth who produce this ungodly entertainment for sick minded pedophiles, the US Supreme Court who have taken an oath to protect the innocent, and the putrid pedophiles who watch this abomination of god and all that is evil. In addition to every child that ever was, and every child that will be sexually abused in the future because some sick f!*k gets his/her jollies off by watching children being tortured, and will at some point in time inflict the lifelong pain and suffering that one goes through, because they were sexually abused. (Emphasis intentionally and harshly added)

In 1973, the case Miller v. California, another landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, when the court changed its definition of obscenity. “It is now referred

"Obscenity law aims at preventing the formation of certain thoughts—typically, erotic ones—in the minds of willing viewers (Koppelman, 1637). Obscenity mainly concerns graphic materials that may be seen as "disgusting" to other individuals (Koppelman,1637). Other people may be offended by multiple obscene images, while others will not find anything wrong with it (Koppelman, 1637). Just like the politics of disgust, it might not be disgusting to others as it might be to

With the rolling in of the 1970s came a huge expansion of pornography in the United States. The industry went from “an underground cottage to an open, aggressive $2 billion-a-year industry.” (Time magazine) The porn industry had a long history of criminal investigation and persecution in previous decades. However, the court system lost its authority and power over porn filmmakers, and they went wild. “Boogie Nights” is a film that wholly shows the boom in this

Obscene material "is not protected by the First Amendment,” (The Dynamics of Mass Communication Tenth Edition, page 377) and broadcast stations cannot air obscene material at anytime. The problem with this is that no one had come up with a set standard of what obscene material is. Due to the difference in beliefs between

The students ages (who attended the assembly) ranged from 14 through 18, all of which were obligated to either attend the assembly, or report to study hall. Prior to the actual speech, two of Fraser’s teachers discussed in detail the inappropriateness of his delivery and what the school policy states about obscene language in a school setting. Fraser decided to deliversay his speech and includewith sexual innuendos. As a result, disciplinary actions occurred. Fraser requested a review of the school policy through the School District’s grievance procedures. They concluded the speech fell “within the ordinary meaning of obscene, as used in the disruptive conduct rule, and affirmed the discipline in its entirely: (page 95). Fraser’s father brought this action to United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The District Court found the school was violating Fraser’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. He was awarded litigation costs and the right to be the commencement speaker at the graduation

The three prong Miller test is the current legal test used to determine whether something is obscene and therefore not protected speech: 1.Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (intends to arouse) 2. Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. 3. Whether the work taken as a whole lack serious, artistic, political, literary, or scientific value (if so then it does not count as obscene).

Next, I would like to discuss how the FCC regulates indecent content on the airwaves and how they determine what is and is not indecent content. A case that still greatly influences the FCC rules on obscenity and indecency was the same case where Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “I know it when I see it.” (fcc.gov) Although his words are self-explanatory, you’ll know it’s obscene or indecent if it bothers you the minute you see it, what bothers one person might not bother the next. When is the line drawn?