About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

21 Baylor L. Rev. 503 (1969)
Stanley v. Georgia: A Private Look at Obscenity

handle is hein.journals/baylr21 and id is 521 raw text is: OBSCENITY STANLEY V. GEORGIA: A PRIVATE LOOK AT OBSCENITY Sheltered by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and con- strued by the United States Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia,1 obscenity continues to be an area of ambiguity and conflict. Any attempt to view a change in status of this nebulous area must, out of necessity, be viewed retrospectively in order to de- termine what is constitutionally protected speech and press. No attempt will be made to review or analyze in depth the multitude of decisions rendered on this subject; however, consideration of landmark decisions prior to Stanley v. Georgia is necessary. I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: COMMERCIAL REGULATION The constitutionality of federal and state obscenity laws first reached the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States.2 Roth recognized that freedom of speech and press were indispensable to the continued growth of free society and warned that ceaseless vigilance is the watchword to prevent their erosion by Congress or by the States.'3 In the same breath, the Court said, We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.'4 To enable the court to determine what stand- ards would be used in evaluating allegedly obscene material, the following test was established: Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.5 This test was applied in affirming a conviction for mailing obscene materials in violation of the federal obscenity statute.6 The Court opined that although there had been a violation oi the federal law, the federal statute deals only with actual mailing; it does not eliminate the power of the state to punish 'keeping for sale' or 'advertising' obscene material.'7 But a state is not free to adopt whatever procedure it pleases for dealing with obsecnity without 189 S.Ct. 1243 (1969). 2354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1956). 31bid. 41bid. 51bid. 618 U.S.C. SECTION 1461. 7Note 2, supra. 1969]

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most