Case Summaries

CASE SUMMARIES

Regina v. Hicklin: Victorian-era test of obscenity – whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall – the focus on the corruption of young girls and the instigation of young men; the effect of an isolated excerpt.

Roth v. United States: the Court upholds obscenity convictions; obscenity falls outside First Amendment protection; obscenity appeals to the body not the mind and therefore has no place in the marketplace of ideas justification for First Amendment protection; obscenity defined as appealing to the prurient interest

Memoirs v. Massachusetts: obscenity defined by more than just prurience, to be obscene, the work must be patently offensive and utterly without redeeming social value.

Redrup v. New York: because the obscenity doctrine was so convoluted, the Court decided cases on a one-by-one basis, reversing without providing any explanation. This method placed severe institutional strain on the court and the uncertainty of the doctrine prompted vagueness and chilling concerns.

Miller v. California: provides the contemporary definition of obscenity.

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton: provides that new rationale for banning speech deemed obscene; “These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself.”; does possible public safety rationale conflict with earlier precedent like Brandenburg’s “fighting words” doctrine?

Jenkins v. Georgia: the Court reversed obscenity conviction on the second prong – the movie Carnal Knowledge was not patently offensive – rather than rely on the value prong to overturn.

Pope v. Illinois: defined the proper standard for the third prong – the proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary person of any given community would find value, but whether reasonable person would; suggests that an ordinary person somehow differs from a reasonable person; a reasonable person is not defined by community standards, but the Court leaves unanswered whether national standard applies.

Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center: first obscenity prosecution ever to be brought against a museum; the curator ultimately was acquitted even after the judge decided that each individual photo constituted “work as a whole” despite the display of the three X,Y,Z portfolios concurrently; note that Professor Adler considers this an “easy” case to defend given Mapplethorpe reputation, references to classicalism and formalism made it easy to prove serious artistic value.

New York v. Ferber: upholds constitutionality of NY statute