Obscenity and Free Speech under Amendment Law
Obscenity and Free Speech Under the First Amendment
First Amendment Text
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
The First Amendment broadly protects freedom of expression, but obscenity is an exception that is not protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has carved out narrow rules to determine what constitutes obscenity.
1. Early Framework: Roth v. United States (1957)
Facts:
Roth was convicted for sending obscene materials through the mail.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
Reasoning:
The Court held that the test for obscenity was whether "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."
This case was the first to define obscenity in terms of community standards and prurient interest (appealing to sexual desire).
Importance:
Established that not all sexually explicit material is protected.
However, the definition was vague and led to confusion in later cases.
2. Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
Facts:
The book Fanny Hill, a 1748 erotic novel, was banned as obscene.
Holding:
The Court set a three-part test for obscenity derived from Roth but made it more difficult to classify speech as obscene.
Reasoning:
For material to be obscene, it must meet all three of these criteria:
The material must be utterly without redeeming social value.
It must be patently offensive.
It must appeal to the prurient interest.
Since Fanny Hill had some redeeming social value (historical and literary), it was not obscene.
Importance:
Raised the bar for what qualifies as obscene.
Introduced the “redeeming social value” test, making it harder for the government to censor.
3. Miller v. California (1973)
Facts:
Miller was convicted for distributing brochures containing explicit sexual material.
Holding:
The Supreme Court established the modern test for obscenity (the “Miller test”).
The Miller Test (3-Part):
To determine if material is obscene, it must satisfy all three prongs:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law;
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Importance:
This test replaced the previous “utterly without redeeming social value” standard with the more objective "serious value" test.
Emphasized community standards rather than a national standard.
Gave states more power to regulate obscenity, but material with serious value remains protected.
4. Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
Facts:
Police found obscene films in Stanley’s home after a search warrant was executed for unrelated reasons.
Holding:
The Court ruled that possession of obscene material in the privacy of one’s home is protected.
Reasoning:
While obscene material is not protected speech, the government cannot criminalize private possession.
The decision emphasized the right to privacy and limited government intrusion.
Importance:
Distinguished between possession and distribution.
Recognized privacy in one’s home as a constitutional protection.
5. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
Facts:
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 criminalized certain virtual child pornography, including computer-generated images that appear to depict minors.
Holding:
The Court struck down parts of the law as unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
Speech that does not involve actual children cannot be banned solely on the basis of being offensive.
Virtual images without real children are protected under the First Amendment.
The ruling reinforced the need for a clear harm to justify restrictions on speech.
Importance:
Clarified limits on obscenity laws, especially concerning child pornography.
Highlighted First Amendment protection of virtual or simulated speech.
6. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
Facts:
The State of Georgia tried to prevent the showing of obscene films in a commercial adult theater.
Holding:
The Court ruled that states may regulate obscene material even in places where adults voluntarily view the material.
Reasoning:
The Court recognized that obscene materials do not receive First Amendment protection.
The state has an interest in protecting the morality of its citizens.
Commercial exhibition of obscene material can be regulated.
Importance:
Confirmed that even consenting adults in private businesses do not have a First Amendment right to display obscenity.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Holding | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roth v. United States | 1957 | Obscenity is unprotected speech; community standards | First test for obscenity under First Amendment |
| Memoirs v. Massachusetts | 1966 | Established 3-part test including "utterly without redeeming value" | Raised bar for obscenity; protected some sexual content |
| Stanley v. Georgia | 1969 | Possession of obscene material in the home is protected | Right to privacy; limited government regulation |
| Miller v. California | 1973 | Modern 3-part Miller test for obscenity | Clear guidelines; community standards focus |
| Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton | 1973 | States can regulate obscene materials in adult theaters | Commercial regulation of obscenity |
| Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | 2002 | Virtual child pornography laws overly broad, unconstitutional | Limits on obscenity laws; protects simulated speech |
Overall Explanation
The First Amendment protects most speech, including sexual expression.
Obscenity is an exception because it is considered to have “no social value” and is offensive to societal standards.
The definition of obscenity evolved from Roth (broad and vague) to Miller (clearer and more specific).
The Miller test remains the controlling test today.
The government may regulate distribution and commercial exhibition of obscene material.
Private possession of obscene materials is protected by the right to privacy (Stanley).
The Court balances community standards and freedom of expression while protecting society from harmful materials.
Child pornography is an exception: Real child pornography is not protected but virtual or simulated depictions may be protected (Ashcroft).
RELATED Blog
0 comments