Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) Alberts v. California 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

AuthorKim Mclane Wardlaw
Pages2296

Page 2296

Until Roth and Alberts, argued and decided on the same days, the Supreme Court had assumed that the FIRST AMENDMENT did not protect OBSCENITY. Squarely confronted with the issue by appeals from convictions under the federal obscenity statute (in Roth) and a California law outlawing the sale and advertising of obscene books (in Alberts), the Court held that obscenity was not constitutionally protected speech.

Justice WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, for the majority, relied on historical evidence that the Framers of the First Amendment had not intended to protect all speech, but only speech with some redeeming social value. Thus, the First Amendment protected even hateful ideas that contributed toward the unfettered exchange of information that might result in desired political and social change. Obscenity, however, was utterly without redeeming social importance, and was not constitutionally protected.

Neither statute before the Court defined obscenity; nor did the Court examine the materials to determine whether they were obscene. The Court nevertheless rejected the appellants' due process objections on the grounds that the statutes had given sufficient warning as to the proscribed conduct and the trial courts had applied the proper standard for judging obscenity.

The Court rejected the widely used test based on Queen v. Hicklin (1868) which judged a work's obscenity by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. The proper standard was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest," that is, has a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. Because the obscenity of the materials involved in Roth was not at issue, the Court escaped the task of applying its definition. Ironically, the definition of obscenity was to preoccupy the Court for the next sixteen years. The Court, having designated a category...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT