"The Supreme Judicial Court erred in holding that a book need not be 'unqualifiedly worthless before it can be deemed obscene.' A book cannot be proscribed ...

A case in which the Court found that "obscene materials" do not have First Amendment protection.

1 янв. 2009 г. · The Supreme Court in Miller v. California established a new standard for determining what could be considered obscene materials and subject to government ...

Appellant was convicted of mailing unsolicited sexually explicit material in violation of a California statute that approximately incorporated the obscenity ...

In sum, the Supreme Court: (a) reaffirmed the Roth holding that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution ( ...

Whether, consistent with the 1st Amendment, unsolicited mass mailings to advertise books containing explicit pictures of sexual acts can be prosecuted.

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and authorities may punish obscene material without infringing upon First Amendment rights.

A written or visually recorded work in question is obscene only if it appeals to prurient sexual interests, is patently offensive by community standards.

In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court held that obscene materials enjoy no special protection under the First Amendment.