John Marshall Harlan II

John Marshall Harlan II

Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Manual Enterprises Inc v. Day…

As regards the standard for judging the element of 'indecency,' the Roth case gives little guidance beyond indicating that the standard is a constitutional one which, as with 'prurient interest,' requires taking the challenged material 'as a whole.' Roth, at 489, 77 S.Ct. at 1311. Being ultimately concerned only with the question whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect material that is admittedly obscene, [11] the Court there had no occasion to explore the application of a particular obscenity standard.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Manual Enterprises Inc v. Day…

These magazines cannot be deemed so offensive on their face as to affront current community standards of decency-a quality that we shall hereafter refer to as 'patent offensiveness' or 'indecency.' Lacking that quality, the magazines cannot be deemed legally 'obscene,' and we need not consider the question of the proper 'audience' by which their 'prurient interest' appeal should be judged.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Manual Enterprises Inc v. Day…

The relevant materials being before us, we determine the issue for ourselves.
There must first be decided the relevant 'community' in terms of whose standards of decency the issue must be judged. We think that the proper test under this federal statute, reaching as it does to all parts of the United States whose population reflects many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, is a national standard of decency.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature