Obscenity Prosecutions In Us Law
Obscenity Prosecutions in U.S. Law – Overview
What is Obscenity?
Obscenity refers to materials or acts that are offensive to prevailing standards of decency and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Unlike protected speech under the First Amendment, obscenity is not constitutionally protected.
Legal Standards Governing Obscenity
The primary test used by courts to determine whether material is obscene is the Miller Test from:
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Miller Test (3 parts):
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, as defined by state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Relevant Federal Statutes
18 U.S.C. §§ 1460-1466 – Criminalize mailing, distributing, or possessing obscene materials.
18 U.S.C. § 1461 – Mailing obscene material.
18 U.S.C. § 1465 – Possession of obscene materials.
Detailed Case Law
Case 1: Miller v. California (1973)
Facts:
Defendant mailed unsolicited brochures advertising adult material.
Legal Issue:
What constitutes obscenity under the First Amendment?
Holding:
Supreme Court established the three-part Miller Test to define obscenity.
Significance:
Set the modern standard for obscenity prosecutions, balancing community standards with constitutional protections.
Case 2: Roth v. United States (1957)
Facts:
Roth was convicted for mailing obscene books and magazines.
Legal Issue:
Is obscene material protected by the First Amendment?
Holding:
Obscene material is not protected speech.
Significance:
Early definition of obscenity emphasizing material that appeals to prurient interest and is utterly without redeeming social importance.
Case 3: United States v. Extreme Associates (2005)
Facts:
Extreme Associates produced and distributed hardcore pornography that some considered obscene.
Charges:
Violation of federal obscenity laws for distributing obscene material.
Outcome:
Owners pled guilty; sentenced to probation and fines.
Significance:
Confirmed federal enforcement of obscenity laws against commercial producers of adult content.
Case 4: United States v. Little (1996)
Facts:
Little operated an adult bookstore selling magazines and videos.
Charges:
Obscenity violations under federal law.
Outcome:
Convicted; court applied Miller Test considering local community standards.
Significance:
Illustrated application of community standards in federal obscenity prosecutions.
Case 5: Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
Facts:
Defendant convicted for showing the film Carnal Knowledge which was alleged obscene.
Issue:
Whether the film was obscene under Georgia law.
Holding:
Supreme Court overturned conviction, ruling the film was not obscene.
Significance:
Clarified that not all sexually explicit material is obscene; work must meet Miller Test.
Case 6: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
Facts:
Challenge to the Child Pornography Prevention Act which prohibited virtual child pornography.
Holding:
Supreme Court struck down the ban on virtual child pornography as overly broad and not obscenity per se.
Significance:
Distinguished between obscenity and other regulated materials like child pornography; limited obscenity prosecutions to actual illegal content.
Summary of Legal Principles
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.
Courts apply the Miller Test focusing on community standards and serious value.
Prosecutions often focus on distribution, mailing, or possession of obscene material.
There is a strong local community standards component in assessing obscenity.
Courts distinguish obscenity from protected adult content and other categories like child pornography.
Conclusion
Obscenity prosecutions remain a complex area of First Amendment law balancing free speech and societal interests in regulating offensive material. The Miller Test remains the controlling standard, and courts carefully assess community norms and the nature of the material.
RELATED Blog
0 comments