Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Roth v. United States (1957)

Read a random definition: commitment letter

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
MIAMI A
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:55
How does one know if they are UR1 or UR2?
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:56
CONGRATS MACAQUE!
TY
got a random stanford email and almost had a heart attack
ALSO CONGRATS!
Congrats1!
21:15
Miami A, yall I'm so excited I could cry.
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
good morning lsd it is 5 am EST
also jazzy my ndls address went long ages ago i sadly do not think it means anything
my stanford address also went long LOL i think at most it's an indicator it's under review
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.