Simple English definitions for legal terms
Read a random definition: commitment letter
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.
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.