Legal Definitions - Roth v. United States (1957)

Roth v. United States (1957) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established a fundamental principle regarding freedom of speech in the United States. In this decision, the Court ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.

This means that the government can regulate or prohibit materials deemed obscene without violating an individual's constitutional right to free speech. Prior to this case, there was less clarity on whether all forms of expression, including those considered obscene, were covered by the First Amendment. Roth clarified that obscenity falls outside the scope of protected speech.

While the specific legal definition of what constitutes "obscenity" has evolved since Roth (most notably with the later case of Miller v. California in 1973, which created a three-part test), the foundational understanding that obscenity receives no First Amendment protection originated with the Roth decision.

Here are some examples illustrating the principle established by Roth v. United States:

• Example 1: Public Art Installation
  A city council denies a permit for a public art installation proposed for a prominent park. The proposed artwork features highly graphic, sexually explicit imagery that the council, reflecting community standards, deems obscene. The artist argues that the denial violates their First Amendment right to artistic expression.

  How it illustrates Roth: The city's decision to deny the permit, based on the content being deemed obscene, aligns with the principle from Roth v. United States. Because obscenity is not protected speech, the city is within its rights to prevent its public display. The First Amendment would not compel the city to allow the exhibition of material that meets the legal definition of obscenity.

• Example 2: Retail Store Display
  A local ordinance prohibits the open display of obscene materials in retail establishments where they are easily visible to the general public, including minors. A convenience store owner is cited by authorities for prominently displaying magazines with highly graphic, sexually explicit content near the checkout counter, in violation of this ordinance.

  How it illustrates Roth: The local ordinance and the citation issued to the store owner are permissible under the Roth ruling. The government, through local authorities, can regulate the public availability and display of materials determined to be obscene because such content does not receive First Amendment protection. The store owner cannot successfully claim a First Amendment right to display materials that meet the legal definition of obscenity.

• Example 3: Broadcast Media Regulation
  A television network airs a late-night program featuring explicit sexual acts and nudity that is widely considered to appeal to prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, thus meeting the legal definition of obscenity. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) subsequently issues a significant fine to the network for broadcasting obscene content.

  How it illustrates Roth: The FCC's ability to fine the network for broadcasting obscene content is consistent with the Roth decision. Since obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, the government (through agencies like the FCC) can regulate and penalize its dissemination, especially over public airwaves, without infringing on the network's free speech rights. The network cannot successfully argue that its First Amendment rights were violated because the content falls into the unprotected category of obscenity.