5. Comstock act (1873) Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character, and -- * * * * Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, . . . whether sealed or unsealed . . . * * * * Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.
8. Problems for the courts (2) Evidence: How should the obscenity of an artifact be determined?
9. Regina v. hicklin (1868) obscene is that which has a tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands the work might fall
10. Roth v. united states (1957) Legal concept “Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.”
11. Roth v. united states (1957) Evidentiary test “whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest”
13. Chaplinski v. new Hampshire (1942) “there are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting" words’...”
14. Chaplinski v. new Hampshire (1942) “It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality”
16. Memoirs v Massachusetts (1966) (1) Dominant theme of the material taken as a whole must appeal to prurient interest
17. Memoirs v Massachusetts (1966) (2) A court must find that the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards re sexual maters
20. Miller v. california (1973) (1) An average person, applying contemporary local community standards, finds that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest
21. Miller v. california (1973) (2) The work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law
22. Miller v. california (1973) (3) The work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
38. Child pornography Images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, even if the depiction does not raise to the standards of obscenity in Miller
40. What about sexting? Minors who take, possess or distribute sexually explicit photos of themselves or other minors are not exempt from child pornography statutes.