Quiz #1 Constitutional law
Roth v. U.S. (1957)
Facts: a landmark case USSC; redefines the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Samuel Roth, ran a literary business in NY and was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing the sending of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail for advertising and selling a publication call AMERICAN APHRODITE containing literary erotica and nude photography. The ruling: Roth came down to a 6-3 decision, with the opinion of the court authored by Brennan.. the court repudiated the Heckling test and defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest "of the" average person, applying contemporary community standards." Why they ruled: Brennan reaffirmed that obscenity was not protected by the first amendment and thus upheld the convictions of Roth and Alberts for publishing and sending obscene material through the mail. Congress could ban material"utterly without redeeming social importance," or in other words, "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest."
New York v. Ferber (1982)
Facts: decision given by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity, even if the material was not obscene. New York had an obscenity law that made it illegal for an individual to "promote any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age." Paul Ferber, an owner of an adult bookstore in Manhattan, was charged under the law after he sold an undercover police officer two films depicting young boys masturbating. He was charged with promoting both obscene sexual performances and indecent sexual performances. Ruling: The New York Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, finding the obscenity law unconstitutional under the First Amendment because the law was both underinclusive as to other films of dangerous activity, and overbroad as to its application to materials produced out-of-state and non-obscene materials.The Court upheld the constitutionality of New York's obscenity law, ruling that it did not violate the First Amendment, and reversed and remanded the case. For a long time before the decision, the Court had ruled that the First Amendment allowed the regulation of obscenity.
Reno v. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) (1997)
Facts: is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part to the decision. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the InternetThe Communications Decency Act was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the knowing transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18; and also the knowing sending to a person under 18 of anything "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." The American Civil Liberties Union argued that certain parts of the act were facially unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction preventing the government from enforcing those provisions. Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled that material that is not obscene may nonetheless be harmful for children, and its marketing may be regulated.[1] In F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court had upheld the possibility of the FCC delivering administrative sanctions to a radio station for broadcasting George Carlin's monologue on "Filthy Words". To have standing for the case, the ACLU published the Supreme Court's opinion on F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation on its website, which included a transcript of Carlin's monologue. Why they ruled: It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. rest of the CDA, including the "safe harbor" provision protecting Internet service providers from being liable for the words of others, was not affected by this decision and remains law.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
Facts: struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech". The case was brought against the Government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry"; along with Bold Type, Inc., a "publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle"; Jim Gingerich, who paints nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer who specialized in erotic images. By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment. Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, Congress added the two categories of speech challenged in this case to its definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Holding: The Court held that the two above provisions were unconstitutional because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech." United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Ruling: The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the government could not prohibit speech merely because of its tendency to persuade its viewers to engage in illegal activity. It ruled that the CPPA was substantially overbroad because it prohibited material that was neither obscene nor produced by exploiting real children, as Ferber prohibited. The court declined to reconsider the case en banc. The government asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and it agreed, noting that the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicted with the decisions of four other circuit courts of appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit. Why they ruled: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," and imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a "stark example of speech suppression." At the same time, sexual abuse of children "is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people." "Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has." The great difficulty with the two provisions of the CPPA at issue in this case was that they included categories of speech other than obscenity and child pornography
Miller v. California (1973)
Facts: USSC redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the "miller test." In 1971, Marvin Miller, an owner/operator of a California mail-order business specializing in pornographic films and books, sent out a brochure advertising books and a film that graphically depicted sexual activity between men and women. The brochure used in the mailing contained graphic images from the books and the film. Five of the brochures were mailed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The owner and his mother opened the envelope and seeing the brochures, called the police. Miller was arrested and charged with violating California Penal Code which says in part, " Every person who knowingly sends or cause to be sent, or brings or cause to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state possesses,etc. any obscene matter is for a first offense, guilty of a misdemeanor. Ruling: The court ruled that the sale and distribution of obscene material was not protected under the first amendment. Miller was tried by jury in Superior Court of Orange County. At the conclusion, the judge instructed the jury to evaluate the evidence by the community standards of California as defined by the statute. The jury returned a guilty verdict. This case went to the supreme court the USSC rejected his argument that he appealed in California on Memoirs v. Massachusetts. Why they Ruled: Miller provided the state greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of "obscene" material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity"
City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. (2000)
Facts: was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding nude dancing as free speech. The court held that an ordinance banning public nudity did not violate the operator of a totally nude entertainment establishment's constitutional right to free speech. Ruling: The Court proceeded to the merits despite a possible mootness issue. While the case was pending, Pap's A.M. went out of business, meaning that no concrete private rights were left to litigate. Despite going out of business, the Supreme Court still proceeded to decide the case on the merits because 1) the City of Erie was suffering an "ongoing injury" and 2) Pap's was still incorporated and could potentially go back into business.
