Samuel Roth, a literary business owner, was convicted in a District Court on charges of violating the federal obscenity statute by advertising an erotic novella. Roth’s first conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On a similar note, David Alberts, who ran a mail-order business in Los Angeles and, was charged for violating the California Penal Code after a complaint that he was selling obscene books. His conviction was also affirmed by an Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of California. Roth appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds that his obscene material was protected under the free speech provision of the First Amendment. Both cases were combined and argued that the laws by which they were convicted violated the First Amendment. The Court’s decision was six to three in Roth, and seven to two in Alberts. Legal questions: 1. Is obscenity protected under the First Amendment of the constitution? Holdings: No, obscenity is not protected under the free speech provision of the First Amendment of the Constitution. According to the Court’s decision, both trial courts followed the proper standard and …show more content…
United States, because the question is being whether the federal obscenity statute violates the First Amendment of the constitution, is different from one dealing with state legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal government should not be allowed to suppress an individual only because the state has also done it. Justice Harlan states that since the government may protect itself from any revolution, the federal government then has the power to deprive speeches that threaten that security. Nevertheless, given that these cases deal with obscenity, they deal directly with the States, and not the federal government mainly because Congress has no power over sexual moralities. Justice Harlan does not support this conviction being