Obscenity and Pornography

Three elements:1) Bad tendency of the material to deprave or corrupt2) Not the whole piece, can be based on just a passage3) Weakest members of society, children, etc.

Roth operated a book-selling business in NY and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and obscene books --> Court says NO it is not protected by the First Amendment because it is "utterly without social redeeming value"
NEW TEST:1) Average person2) Applying contemporary community standards3) Dominant theme of the piece as a whole appeals to prurient interests

Authorities searched Stanley's home in order to expose bookmaking activities, found rolls of film with material they considered obscene and he was convicted of possessing obscene materials --> Court says YES this is protected by the First Amendment, personal privacy is extremely important and it is very distinct from publishing and distributing obscene materials, which the state can regulate

Miller conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of books with adult material, the mailings displayed explicit sexual acts with genitals displayed --> Court says NO this is not protected
NEW TEST:1) average person, contemporary community standards, work taken as a whole appealing to the prurient interests2) whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct defined by state law3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
rejecting "utterly without social redeeming value"

Paul Ferber selling to an undercover cop a copy of a tape where young boys were masturbating violating a New York child pornography law prohibiting persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of sixteen by distributing material which depicts such performance --> Court says NO this publication is not protected by the First Amendment because the state has a vested interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of minors

Pap's A.M. owned Kandyland, which featured totally nude dancing, this violated the Erie statue banning public nudity --> Court says NO this is not protected because OC says it regulates conduct in general not specifically the expressive aspects, can retain the erotic message by wearing pasties and g-strings

1996 Communications Decency Act attempting to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, does this violate the First and Fifth Amendments? --> Court says YES material on the internet is protected because its regulation would be a content-based blanket restriction