Roth (1957): This controversial case attempted to develop a new
definition of obscenity different from the Hicklen test. D (Roth)
conducted a business in New York in the publication and sale of
books, photos and mags. He was convicted by a jury of mailing
obscene circulars and ads, and an obscene book, in violation of a
federal obscenity statute. This statute held that the material must
“tend to stir sexual impulses and lead to sexually impure thoughts.”
Was this federal statute a violation of P’s First Am. rights?
Another D (Alberts), in CA, sold certain materials that were found
obscene because they violated a state obscenity statute. This
statute defined obscenity as materials that “have a tendency to
deprave or corrupt its readers by exciting lascivious thoughts or
arousing lustful desire.” Does this state statute violate P’s First
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to Describe the case of Roth (1957).. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.