Roth V United States 1957

Title and Year Roth V United States

1957

Court

Warren

Majority Opinion

William Brenan Jr

Facts/Brief Background

Samuel Roth ran a publishing business in New York. He was convicted of mailing “obscene, lascivious, lewd” materials which are banned by the federal statute. Alberts another publisher in California was also convicted of publishing and selling obscene and nude materials and also making obscene advertisements for the sale of the products. Alberts was convicted for a California state statute which banned all of these actions. Both of them opposed their charges and the cases were compiled with each other. The supreme court granted writ of certiorari for hearing the case.

Issue

Did either the federal or California's obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment? Ruling & Legal Doctrine

The court ruled against Roth. The court ruled that obscenity is not protected by the freedom of expression and freedom of press of the 1st amendment. Justice Brenan said that all forms of expression cannot be deemed to be protected by the 1st amendment right to freedom of expression. The court narrowed the meaning of obscenity by repealing the Haitlin test which was used to test the cases and replaced it with a new test which is worded as “material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" to the "average person, applying contemporary community standards." Thus by proposing this new test, the court allowed congress to create any laws that might ban obscenity that falls within the requirements proposed in the test.

Significance

The case’s decision outlawed the types of materials that would be obscene from the hands of several people. But some parts of the Roth ruling were over ruled in Miller V California. The decision was never over ruled completely. But parts of have been. The court for the first time began using community standards to determine whether obscenity. The issue is still debated even today and not a proper agreement has never been reached till now.