Roth v. US
"Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, both oral and written, from governmental prior restraint, except as such expression constitutes libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, or criminal conduct such as bribery, perjury, or incitement to riot." In the U.S., this freedom is protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and is considered essential to the vitality of representative government. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, protection and responsibilities of government towards the people were explicitly laid down. Unfortunately, most of these rights for individuals were at the federal level, leaving the states to inact more personal and often times more unfair laws for citizens at the state level. The Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. N!o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its ju
ity in Las Vegas can mean something totally different to someone in a major religious area such as Mormon Salt Lake City, Utah. Different states will have different attitudes towards the same work or literature. Also at issue is if a work is labeled obscene and therefore "tends to stir sexual impulses and lead to sexually impure thoughts", should this book really have no social importance, because in fact it may have social importance in some way. One judge advises that if a book was outlawed in one local state but not another, this would be an unwise act, but acceptable. However, banning the same book nationally should not be tolerated. In addition the broad definition of obscenity could unfortunately cover works, which are actually protected speech. ing opinion was made by Chief Justice Warren, who agreed that the definition of "obscene" is vague, and may not mean the same to every person. He concluded that the central issue is that the person is on trial, not the actual book or "obscene" material. He implied that the person knowingly and deliberately placed obscene and unsociably important material in the postal system. Also agreed upon was that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the home against invasion of unsolicited obscenity. I would have commented, and agreed with dissenting Judge Harlan, that obscenity is a vague and varying term that means different definitions to different people. No obscene items should be banned or excluded from those that desire them. In the current times of the Internet, pornography has found a new medium in which to thrive. Similar to your postal mailbox is your email box. Here, unsolicited "obscene" mail may often find it's place, unsolicited. Few laws are current enough to deal with this problem. I feel that the Internet should in no way be censored. If these obscene messages and websites happen to fall on one, then let them. The idea of free information exchange is the only reason why the Internet grew to what it is today. In no way should we limit the growth of the Internet. Besides, it would be eternally impossible to prosecute every pornographic website on the net. As soon as one is shut down, five more would spring up i
Some common words found in the essay are:
City Utah, Spring Summer, Supreme Court, Fourteenth Amendment, Judge Harlan, Bocaccio's Decameron, Justice Warren, Department Congress, Bill Rights, , social importance, obscene material, fourteenth amendment, definition obscene, protected amendment, pornographic material, issue definition obscene, indecent material, federal statute, obscene lewd, obscene lewd lascivious, lascivious filthy, obscene social importance, writes otherwise produces, united supreme court,
Approximate Word count = 1500
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
