Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Roth v. United States (1957)

Read a random definition: legiosus

A quick definition of Roth v. United States (1957):

Roth v. United States is a court case that happened in 1957. The court decided that it is not okay to say or show things that are very inappropriate or dirty. This means that the First Amendment, which protects free speech, does not protect this kind of speech. The person who brought the case, Roth, was selling books that were considered very dirty and he got in trouble for it. The court said that it was okay for the government to stop him from doing that. Some people on the court disagreed, but most of them thought it was important to stop people from saying or showing things that are very inappropriate.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Roth v. United States is a 1957 Supreme Court case that established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. This means that the government can regulate or even ban speech or materials that are considered obscene. The case involved a man named Roth who was convicted for mailing obscene materials. He argued that his First Amendment rights were being violated, but the Court disagreed.

Example: An example of obscenity that would not be protected by the First Amendment is child pornography. This is because it is considered harmful and offensive to society, and has no redeeming value. Another example might be a book or movie that contains extremely graphic and explicit sexual content that is intended solely to arouse the reader or viewer.

Explanation: The Court's decision in Roth v. United States means that the government can regulate or even ban materials that are considered obscene, even if they have some artistic or literary value. The Court established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment because it is not considered a legitimate form of expression. The examples given illustrate how the government might apply this standard in practice, by banning materials that are considered harmful or offensive to society.

roll over | rout

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:06
it means you will not be rejected today and may be accepted or WL in the future
Just got my Michigan rejection
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.