Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1965–1969 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts"green2 sentences1969Ed. 2d 1498, 1508 , and the fact that material dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas or has literary, scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance may not be branded as obscenity.” Our definition of obscenity — the Roth-Alberts test — was restated with somewhat different emphasis perhaps, by the Supreme Court in A Book Named “John Clelands' Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U. S. 413, 418 , 86 S. Ct. 975, 977 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5-6 (1966), hereinafter referred to as Memoirs, in which Mr. Justice Brennan, for the Supreme Court, stated: “We 1969Ed. 2d 1498, 1508 , and the fact that material dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas or has literary, scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance may not be branded as obscenity.” Our definition of obscenity — the Roth-Alberts test — was restated with somewhat different emphasis perhaps, by the Supreme Court in A Book Named “John Clelands' Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U. S. 413, 418 , 86 S. Ct. 975, 977 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5-6 (1966), hereinafter referred to as Memoirs, in which Mr. Justice Brennan, for the Supreme Court, stated: “We | 3 | 4 |
Sanza v. Maryland State Board of Censorsgreen2 sentences1969We believe that the manner of the particular presentation is relevant to a consideration of whether the film is an appeal to prurient interest, not only under Ginzburg , but under the Roth-Alberts test before Ginzburg *195 was decided.” ( 245 Md. at 334 , 226 A. 2d at 325 ) The appellant earnestly argued that the Roth-Alberts test is no longer a viable one in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Redrup v. Neto York, 386 U. S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L. 1969We believe that the manner of the particular presentation is relevant to a consideration of whether the film is an appeal to prurient interest, not only under Ginzburg , but under the Roth-Alberts test before Ginzburg *195 was decided.” ( 245 Md. at 334 , 226 A. 2d at 325 ) The appellant earnestly argued that the Roth-Alberts test is no longer a viable one in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Redrup v. Neto York, 386 U. S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L. | 1 | 1 |
Ginzburg v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1969Ed. 2d at 38), has a direct bearing on the issues presented by the Roth-Alberts test as it may show an appeal to the prurient interest as well as the lack of any redeeming social value, inasmuch as where “the purveyor’s sole emphasis is on the sexually provocative aspects” a court could accept his evaluation and such factors “may be decisive in the determination of obscenity.” (Ginzburg, supra, 383 U. S. at 470, 86 S. Ct. at 947 , 16 L. 1969Ed. 2d at 38), has a direct bearing on the issues presented by the Roth-Alberts test as it may show an appeal to the prurient interest as well as the lack of any redeeming social value, inasmuch as where “the purveyor’s sole emphasis is on the sexually provocative aspects” a court could accept his evaluation and such factors “may be decisive in the determination of obscenity.” (Ginzburg, supra, 383 U. S. at 470, 86 S. Ct. at 947 , 16 L. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Californiagreen2 sentences1967If the test be on a local basis, it is true that “the community cannot, where liberty of speech and press are at issue, condemn that which it generally tolerates.” Opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 171 (1959); Yudkin v. State, 229 Md. 223, 229-30 , 182 A. 2d 798 (1962). 1967If the test be on a local basis, it is true that “the community cannot, where liberty of speech and press are at issue, condemn that which it generally tolerates.” Opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 171 (1959); Yudkin v. State, 229 Md. 223, 229-30 , 182 A. 2d 798 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roth v. United States
green
2 sentences1969Ed. 2d 1498, 1508 , and the fact that material dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas or has literary, scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance may not be branded as obscenity.” Our definition of obscenity — the Roth-Alberts test — was restated with somewhat different emphasis perhaps, by the Supreme Court in A Book Named “John Clelands' Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U. S. 413, 418 , 86 S. Ct. 975, 977 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5-6 (1966), hereinafter referred to as Memoirs, in which Mr. Justice Brennan, for the Supreme Court, stated: “We 1969Ed. 2d 1498, 1508 , and the fact that material dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas or has literary, scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance may not be branded as obscenity.” Our definition of obscenity — the Roth-Alberts test — was restated with somewhat different emphasis perhaps, by the Supreme Court in A Book Named “John Clelands' Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U. S. 413, 418 , 86 S. Ct. 975, 977 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5-6 (1966), hereinafter referred to as Memoirs, in which Mr. Justice Brennan, for the Supreme Court, stated: “We | 4 | 1965–1969 |
Jacobellis v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1967I The Roth-Alberts test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), reiterated in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 (1964), is summarized in A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General (the “Fanny Hill” decision), 383 U. S. 413, 418 , 16 L. 1967I The Roth-Alberts test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), reiterated in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 (1964), is summarized in A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General (the “Fanny Hill” decision), 383 U. S. 413, 418 , 16 L. | 3 | 1965–1967 |
Redrup v. New York
green
2 sentences1969We believe that the manner of the particular presentation is relevant to a consideration of whether the film is an appeal to prurient interest, not only under Ginzburg , but under the Roth-Alberts test before Ginzburg *195 was decided.” ( 245 Md. at 334 , 226 A. 2d at 325 ) The appellant earnestly argued that the Roth-Alberts test is no longer a viable one in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Redrup v. Neto York, 386 U. S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L. 1969We believe that the manner of the particular presentation is relevant to a consideration of whether the film is an appeal to prurient interest, not only under Ginzburg , but under the Roth-Alberts test before Ginzburg *195 was decided.” ( 245 Md. at 334 , 226 A. 2d at 325 ) The appellant earnestly argued that the Roth-Alberts test is no longer a viable one in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Redrup v. Neto York, 386 U. S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Yudkin v. State
green
2 sentences1967If the test be on a local basis, it is true that “the community cannot, where liberty of speech and press are at issue, condemn that which it generally tolerates.” Opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 171 (1959); Yudkin v. State, 229 Md. 223, 229-30 , 182 A. 2d 798 (1962). 1967If the test be on a local basis, it is true that “the community cannot, where liberty of speech and press are at issue, condemn that which it generally tolerates.” Opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 171 (1959); Yudkin v. State, 229 Md. 223, 229-30 , 182 A. 2d 798 (1962). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Freedman v. State
red
2 sentences1965NOTES [1] Code, Article 66A, Sections 1 to 26. [2] This case reversed our decision in Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498 , 197 A.2d 232 (1964). [3] Black and Douglas, JJ. were, and for some time have been, of the opinion that all such statutes are unconstitutional under all circumstances. [4] The appeal may be entered at any time after the order is filed but not later than 30 days therefrom. [5] The Roth-Alberts test of obscenity as enunciated by Mr. Justice Brennan, for the majority of the Supreme Court is: "[W]hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant 1965NOTES [1] Code, Article 66A, Sections 1 to 26. [2] This case reversed our decision in Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498 , 197 A.2d 232 (1964). [3] Black and Douglas, JJ. were, and for some time have been, of the opinion that all such statutes are unconstitutional under all circumstances. [4] The appeal may be entered at any time after the order is filed but not later than 30 days therefrom. [5] The Roth-Alberts test of obscenity as enunciated by Mr. Justice Brennan, for the majority of the Supreme Court is: "[W]hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant | 1 | 1965–1965 |