Obscenity, Pornography, Violence, and Disgust

Question 1

Roth v. United States (1957)

Answer 1

Obscenity is an unprotected Chaplinksy category. Obscenity is more than sexually explicit, it is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to the prurient interest.

Question 2

Miller v. California (1973)

Answer 2

Miller mailed unsolicited advertisements for adult material. Obscenity is unprotected and the guiding principles are 1) whether average person (with applicable community standards) would find the work appealing to the prurient interest (taken as a whole), 2) whether the work describes/depicts sexual specifically defined by law in a patently offensive way, and 3) whether the work (taken as a whole) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value from a national standard.

Question 3

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)

Answer 3

State regulation enjoined theatre from showing obscene materials to consenting adults. Passed rational basis because obscenity is unprotected and state had legitimate interest in public safety and public interest in morality, quality of life, and decent community environment.

Question 4

American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (1985)

Answer 4

Pornography, Content Based, 7th Circuit, Summarily Affirmed, While obscenity is per se unprotected, pornography is not, and a state cannot prohibit pornography on the grounds that it subordinates women. State’s definition of pornography constituted content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination.

Question 5

New York v. Ferber (1982)

Answer 5

Even if it falls outside the definition of Obescinity, the state can prohibit the exhibition, sale, production, and possession of non-adult pornography because the state has a compelling interest in the physical and psychological well-being of minors.

Question 6

Osborne v. Ohio (1990)

Answer 6

The state may prohibit possession of non-adult pornography, notwithstanding the ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which prohibits the state from punishing the private possession of obscene material within one’s own home.

Question 7

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)

Answer 7

Pornography that appears to depict minors but did not actually involve minors (young looking adults or computer generated images) cannot be proscribed as obscenity. It’s creation is not intrinsically related to sexual abuse of minors and the potential for subsequent criminal acts by its consumers are unrelated.

Question 8

United States v. Stevens (2010)

Answer 8

Overbroad, Animal Cruelty, Crush Videos, The statute was content-based and overly broad, and the government failed to provide a sufficiently compelling interest. Court refused to create a new Chaplinsky category for animal cruelty.

Question 9

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

Answer 9

A state law that seeks to prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.