On May 4, 1987 the Supreme Court released their 5-4 decision. The court had examined “whether in a prosecution for the sale of allegedly obscene materials, the jury may be instructed to apply community standards in deciding the value question.” The majority included Rehnquist, White, Powell, O’Connor and Scalia. It concluded: “Just as the ideas a work represents need not obtain majority approval to merit protection, neither, insofar as the First Amendment is concerned, does the value of the work vary from community to community based on the degree of local acceptance won.” The Court observed that only the first two prongs of the Miller Test were discussed in terms of applying community standards because they are questions of fact and therefore, subject to review under community standards. However, failure to mention community standards in the value portion of the test was not an error, but and emphasis that such measures were inept. The serious value element is subject to judicial review and is ultimately a question of the law; because a question of the law should not vary from community to community, a national or objective standard must pertain. The Court concluded, “The proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member …show more content…
Illinois, the constitutional position on obscene material has not changed. The Miller Test, with the revised third prong has remained unaltered and obscenity prosecutions have continued in steady decline from 1990. The dispute and definition of obscenity still persist but with the lack of Supreme Court attention to such matters it development is unlikely. Perhaps the law of obscenity ought to be reexamined and defined to create a more constructive standard. Or, just as feasibly, it could be considered that a unanimous, objective standard is unattainable as Justice Stevens stated in his dissent “De gustibus non est disputandum. Just as there is no arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
The logical consequence of the application of the Stromberg case ruling to the Terminiello case was the reversal of the conviction. The Supreme Court did not challenge the constitutionality of the Chicago ordinance, but stated that in this case, free speech can not be denied to anyone even if such speech is considered to be provocative and unpopular in nature. The specifics of the Terminiello conviction were not explicit and, therefore, impenetrable by the inquiries of the Supreme Court. Without exact articulation of the conviction the Court could not dissect the verdict into parts that were applicable to Terminiello's charge and conviction.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
[49] Justice Frank Murphy’s Notes on Screws et al. v. United States, Frank Murphy Papers.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
The “reasonable man/police officer” test is an important tool used in the U.S Supreme Court system.
Restraint and Activism Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted, rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include the U.S. v. Kinder, where Congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine.
Klein, Chuck. “What the Second Amendment Says.” The Cincinnati Enquirer 28 March 2001: B7. 5 April 2004
Kieran, M. (2008, January 28). Art, censorship and morality. Open Learn, the Open University. Retrieved January 5, 2014 from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/art-censorship-and-morality
In this case study, we can use the data provided to analyse the number of cups of coffee consumed in a week for the males and females, by using SPSS. It is clear that it can be used the independent-samples t-test for this question. For this case, we can use the independent-samples t-test to compare the mean scores on some continuous variable for two different groups. In other words, we need one independent variable (e.g. males and females) and dependent variable (e.g. the number of cups of coffee consumed a week) to test significant difference in the mean scores for the two groups. From the coffee drinking habits research, we could obtain this statistic of how males and females differ significantly in terms of their coffee consumption during
... in setting standards for society to conform to. Therefor Hart supported the committee with a more liberal view and Devlin didn’t with a more authoritarian, paternalistic view. It is clear there are both case and statute law which reflect both viewpoints. In the case of Brown it shows how law enforces moral values and places the public good over individual freedom. However the law on homosexuality now reflect a more liberal view and so gives freedom and individual choice.