Roth v. United States: A Landmark Case in Obscenity Law

Introduction

Roth v. United States (1957) stands as a pivotal ruling in the history of obscenity law in the United States. The case established a test for determining whether material is obscene and protected by the First Amendment or not.

Background of the Case

Samuel Roth published and distributed several magazines that contained sexually explicit material. He was convicted of violating federal obscenity laws. Roth appealed his conviction, arguing that the material was protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Roth's conviction. Justice William Brennan delivered the majority opinion, setting forth the "Roth Test" for obscenity.

Roth Test for Obscenity

According to the Roth Test, material is obscene if:

• The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex;
• The material is patently offensive because it affronts community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and
• The material lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Key Points of the Ruling

• Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. Obscene material does not contribute to the "marketplace of ideas" and is therefore not entitled to constitutional protection.
• Community standards determine obscenity. The test is based on what the average person in the community would consider obscene.
• The obscenity determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all definition of obscenity.

Impact of Roth v. United States

The Roth ruling had a significant impact on obscenity law:

• It established a clear standard for obscenity. The Roth Test has been used in countless cases to determine whether material is obscene.
• It limited the scope of First Amendment protection for obscenity. Obscene material is now considered outside the realm of protected speech.
• It sparked ongoing debate about the definition of obscenity. The Roth Test has been criticized by some for being too vague and subjective.

Post-Roth Developments

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has refined and elaborated on the Roth Test. Some key developments include:

• Miller v. California (1973): The Court provided a more specific three-part test for obscenity, which is still used today.
• Reno v. ACLU (1997): The Court held that the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. However, the Court also affirmed that obscenity is not protected speech.

Current State of Obscenity Law

Today, obscenity law continues to be a complex and controversial area. The Roth Test remains the primary standard for determining obscenity. However, the definition of obscenity is constantly evolving as society's values and standards change.

Conclusion

Roth v. United States was a landmark case that established a framework for regulating obscenity in the United States. The Roth Test has been used for decades to determine whether material is obscene and protected by the First Amendment. However, the debate over the definition of obscenity and its constitutional protection continues to this day.