Roth v. United States (1957)

Facts of the Case

Samuel Roth, a New York City publisher and book distributor, was convicted under a federal statute for mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of the Comstock Act of 1873. The case was consolidated with Alberts v. California, in which David Alberts was convicted under a California statute for distributing obscene materials. Roth argued that the statute violated the First Amendment by restricting his freedom of speech and press.

Constitutional Question

Does the federal obscenity law violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and press?

Arguments

For Roth:

  • The First Amendment protects all forms of expression, including material that may be considered obscene by some.
  • The federal statute is overly broad and vague, giving the government excessive power to suppress speech and publications based on subjective determinations of obscenity.
  • The restriction of obscene materials infringes upon the fundamental right to free speech and the press.

For the United States:

  • The First Amendment does not protect obscene materials, which lack any redeeming social value and can harm public morality and welfare.
  • The federal government has a legitimate interest in regulating and prohibiting the distribution of obscene materials to protect society from their harmful effects.
  • The definition of obscenity used by the courts is sufficiently clear and does not infringe upon protected speech.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled against Roth. Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the majority, held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court made several key points:

  1. Obscenity and the First Amendment: The Court ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment because it is “utterly without redeeming social importance.” The Court distinguished between protected expression, such as ideas and opinions, and obscene material, which does not contribute to the exchange of ideas and public discourse.
  2. Test for Obscenity: The Court established a new test for determining whether material is obscene: whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest.
  3. Legitimate Government Interest: The Court recognized the government’s legitimate interest in regulating obscene material to protect public morality and decency.

Significance

Roth v. United States is a landmark case that established the principle that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and provided a legal framework for determining what constitutes obscene material. The decision marked a significant moment in the development of obscenity law in the United States, setting the stage for future cases that would further refine the definition of obscenity and the standards by which it is judged. Roth v. United States underscored the balance between protecting freedom of expression and upholding societal norms of decency, and it remains a foundational precedent in First Amendment jurisprudence regarding obscenity.