SkipCaptcha
35,519
edits
Changes
Liberalism and pornography (view source)
Revision as of 16:23, February 15, 2021
, 16:23, February 15, 2021→Memoirs v. Massachusetts
:{{main|Memoirs v. Massachusetts}}
:{{main|Memoirs v. Massachusetts}}
In the Supreme Court ruling for ''Memoirs v. Massachusetts'', Justices Brennan, Fortas, Brennan, Black, Douglas, and [[Potter Stewart|Stewart]] made up the majority opinion that expanded the legality of pornographic "literature", protecting them unless they had "no literary value".<ref>[https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/memoirs-v-massachusetts-1966 Memoirs v. Massachusetts 1966]. ''encyclopedia.com''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref> The three dissents came from Justices [[Byron White]], [[Tom Clark]], and [[John Harlan II]].
In the Supreme Court ruling for ''Memoirs v. Massachusetts'', Justices Brennan, Fortas, Brennan, Black, Douglas, and [[Potter Stewart|Stewart]] made up the majority opinion that expanded the legality of pornographic "literature", protecting them unless they had "no literary value".<ref>[https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/memoirs-v-massachusetts-1966 Memoirs v. Massachusetts 1966]. ''encyclopedia.com''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref> The three dissents came from Justices [[Byron White]], [[Tom Clark]], and [[John Harlan II]].
Per the conclusion of Brennan on the ruling:<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/413/ Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)]. ''Justia''. Retrieved February 15, 2021.</ref>
[[File:WilliamBrennan.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Associate Justice [[William Brennan]] was appointed to the Supreme Court by [[Dwight Eisenhower]], who later regretted the decision.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/28/opinion/l-eisenhower-s-mistakes-336475.html Eisenhower's 'Mistakes']. ''The New York Times''. 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.
2. Since a book cannot be proscribed as obscene unless found to be utterly without redeeming social value, the Supreme Judicial Court erroneously interpreted the federal constitutional standard. Pp. 383 U. S. 419-420.
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.}}
==References==
==References==