SkipCaptcha
35,519
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: − + Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + + + + + +
Liberalism and pornography (view source)
Revision as of 16:33, February 15, 2021
, 16:33, February 15, 2021→Memoirs v. Massachusetts
[[File:EarlWarren.jpg|thumb|left|170px|Eisenhower later in his life referred to his nomination of Warren to the Supreme Court as one of his biggest mistakes.<ref name=Ike/>]]
[[File:EarlWarren.jpg|thumb|left|170px|Eisenhower later in his life referred to his nomination of Warren to the Supreme Court as one of his biggest mistakes.<ref name=Ike/>]]
Per the conclusion of Brennan on the ruling in concurrence with Warren and Fortas:<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/413/ Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)]. ''Justia''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref>
Per the conclusion of Brennan on the ruling in concurrence with Warren and Fortas:<ref name=Memoirs v. Massachusetts text>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/413/ Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)]. ''Justia''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref>
{{cquote|1. Under the test in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, as elaborated in subsequent cases, each of three elements must independently be satisfied before a book can be held obscene: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value. P. 383 U. S. 418.
{{cquote|1. Under the test in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, as elaborated in subsequent cases, each of three elements must independently be satisfied before a book can be held obscene: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value. P. 383 U. S. 418.
3. On the premise, not assessed here, that it has the requisite prurient appeal, is patently offensive, and has only a modicum of social importance, evidence of commercial exploitation of the book for the sake of prurient appeal to the exclusion of all other values.}}
3. On the premise, not assessed here, that it has the requisite prurient appeal, is patently offensive, and has only a modicum of social importance, evidence of commercial exploitation of the book for the sake of prurient appeal to the exclusion of all other values.}}
Justice Douglas wrote:<ref name=Memoirs v. Massachusetts text/>
{{cquote|1. Since the First Amendment forbids censorship of expression of ideas not linked with illegal action, Fanny Hill cannot be proscribed. Pp. 383 U. S. 426; 383 U. S. 427-433.
2. Even under the prevailing view of the Roth test the book cannot be held to be obscene in view of substantial evidence showing that it has literary, historical, and social importance. P. 383 U. S. 426.
3. Since there is no power under the First Amendment to control mere expression, the manner in which a book that concededly has social worth is advertised and sold is irrelevant. P. 383 U. S. 427.
4. There is no basis in history for the view expressed in Roth that "obscene" speech is "outside" the protection of the First Amendment. Pp. 383 U. S. 428-431.
5. No interest of society justifies overriding the guarantees of free speech and press and establishing a regime of censorship. Pp. 383 U.S. 431-433.}}
==References==
==References==