Chapter 6: Religio-Moral Heresy Flashcards
Burstyn v. Wilson
Facts: The Miracle (movie) lost its license in NY because it was considered sacrilegious. The distributor challenged the decision.
Holding: SCOTUS reversed the ruling stating that a state cannot ban a film for religious reasons
Significance: Blasphemy is not a constitutional basis for the suppression of ideas
Epperson v. Arkansas
Facts: Epperson challenged Arakansas’s antievolution law after she was given a textbook that included evolution
Holding: SCOTUS ruled that the Arkansas law was unconstitutional
Significance: the government cannot promote religious ideas nor stifle those that conflict with religious beliefs, Darwinism is protected
Kingsley International Pictures v. Regents
Facts: The NY licensing board refused to license a movie based on Lady Chatterley’s lover because it advocated an extramarital affair.
Holding: SCOTUS sided with the film citing the first amendment right to express unpopular beliefs
Significance: established that immoral ideas were protected
Regina v. Hicklin (England)
Facts: a man was convicted for publishing a booklet that condemned Priests’ behavior in confessionals with women
Holding: the court sided with the Priests and defined obscenity
Significance: Established the Hicklin rule, which defined obscenity as an idea that could corrupt someone’s mind (reminiscent of the bad tendency test)
U.S v. One Book Called Ulysses
Facts: Random house challenged a prior decision that Ulysses could not be published in the US
Holding: SCOTUS rules that the book is not obscene when viewed as a whole
Significance: indicated that SCOTUS was moving away from the Hicklin rule
Roth v. United States
Facts: Roth was convicted for publishing and distributing sexual books
Holding: SCOTUS upholds the conviction
Significance: the court moves away from the Hicklin test and beings to use the Roth test
The Roth Test
1. Whether to the average person
2. Applying contemporary community standards
3. To the material taken as a whole
4. Finds that the material appeals to a prurient interest
Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Massachusetts
Facts: Putnam asked the court for permission to publish a book about a prostitute in the United States
Holding: SCOTUS ruled that the memoirs were not obscene because they had redeeming social value
Significance: clarified the Roth test by defining obscenity as material with an utter lack of redeeming social value
Ginzberg v. United States
Facts: Ginzberg was convicted for marketing his pornography as being obscene, although it was not
Holding: SCOTUS upheld the conviction by charging Ginzberg with pandering
Significance: Clarified the Roth test by asserting it is unlawful to advertise material as obscene
Mishkin v. New York
Facts: Mishkin was convicted of selling fetish porn and argued that his material was not prurient but rather disgusting to the average person
Holding: SCOTUS upheld the conviction
Significance: clarified the Roth test by establishing that material had to be found prurient by either an average person or an individual from the intended audience
Redrup v. New York
Facts: a newsstand clerk was convicted for selling sexual novels
Holding: SCOTUS sides with Redrup but the Justices cannot agree on why Redrup won
Significance: disagreement in the court indicates the weakness of Roth and foreshadows Miller
Ginsberg v. New York
Facts: Ginsberg was convicted of selling a pornographic magazine to a minor but appealed on the grounds that the magazine is not obscene
Holding: SCOTUS sides with Ginsburg because material sold to minors is held to a higher standard
Significance: established the variable obscenity doctrine → the sale of pornography to children is not legal due to parental authority issues and the state’s interest in protecting children
Stanley v. Georgia
Facts: during a search of Stanley’s house, police found sexually explicit videotapes
Holding: SCOTUS sides with Stanley
Significance: Established the private ownership of obscenity was lawful
Miller v. California
Facts: Miller is convicted of distributing sexually explicit content through the mail. The jury is incorrectly instructed to use the California standard of prurience
Holding: SCOTUS remands the case while redefining obscenity law in the process
Significance: Establishes the modern Miller Test for obscenity
The Miller Test
1. The Roth Test: whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest”
2. The work must violate the standard of obscenity that is specifically defined by each state
3. The work must lack serious literary artistic political or scientific value (SLAPS test)
Ward v. Illinois
Facts: Ward was convicted for selling sadomasochist magazines and argued that sadomasochism was not expressly outlawed by the Illinois state law (prong 2 of the miller test)
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Illinois because Ward had ample guidance as to the definition of obscenity from the Illinois Supreme court
Significance: significantly weakened the second prong of the Miller test
Pinkus v. United States
Facts: Pinkus was convicted for mailing obscene content The trial judge mistakenly defined the average person as someone both young and old.
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Pinkus because the content did not meet the Miller standard
Significance: Clarified the Miller Test by defining ‘the average person” as an adult
