NCJ Number
44863
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 68 Issue: 4 Dated: (DECEMBER 1977) Pages: 613-623
Date Published
1977
Length
11 pages
Annotation
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN FOUR 1977 CASES CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE DESCRIBED.
Abstract
THE BASIC STANDARDS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT WITH REGARD TO OBSCENITY, STATED IN ITS DECISION ON MILLER V. CALIFORNIA, ARE THAT THE TRIER OF FACT MUST DETERMINE: (1) WHETHER THE AVERAGE PERSON, APPLYING CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY STANDARDS, WOULD FIND THAT THE WORK, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, APPEALED TO THE PRURIENT INTEREST; (2) WHETHER IT DEPICTS OR DESCRIBES IN A PATENTLY OFFENSIVE WAY SEXUAL CONDUCT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED BY THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW; AND (3) WHETHER THE WORK, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LACKS SERIOUS LITERARY, ARTISTIC, POLITICAL, OR SCIENTIFIC VALUE. IN ADDITION, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT STATE OBSCENITY LAWS SPECIFICALLY DEFINE PROSCRIBED MATERIAL, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE DEALERS IN QUESTIONABLY OBSCENE MATERIAL WITH FAIR NOTICE OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL PROSECUTUION. FOUR MAJOR OBSCENITY CASES WERE DECIDED IN 1977. IN ONE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE ILLINOIS OBSCENITY STATUTE SATISFIED SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS, AND THEREFORE WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE. IN ANOTHER, IT HELD THAT EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDINGS SALES AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE MATERIAL I.E., EVIDENCE OF PANDERING TO PRURIENT INTERESTS, WAS RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF OBSCENITY. A THIRD CASE CONCERNED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OBSCENITY LAWS IN A PARTICULAR STATE AND THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL OBSCENITY STATUTES. THE COURT HELD THAT THE ABILITY OF A STATE TO PROSCRIBE OR PERMIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS HAD NO EFFECT UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO PROHIBIT THE MAILING OF SUCH MATERIALS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH MAILINGS WERE INTRASTATE. THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT STATE LAWS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS. A FINAL DECISION DETERMINED THAT THE STANDARDS ANNOUNCED IN MILLER V CALIFORNIA WERE NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH RETROACTIVE APPLICATION WAS TO THE DETERIMENT OF A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE. (VDA)