Roth test in Florida

1971That defect does not appear in the case at bar since the trial judge's adjudication was predicated upon the Roth test as elaborated in Memoirs and adopted in State v. Reese, supra. In Schaub, supra, the court also held that a business involved in the dissemination of publications cannot be declared a nuisance in this manner under the controlling precedent of Near v. Minnesota ex rel.

1971That defect does not appear in the case at bar since the trial judge's adjudication was predicated upon the Roth test as elaborated in Memoirs and adopted in State v. Reese, supra. In Schaub, supra, the court also held that a business involved in the dissemination of publications cannot be declared a nuisance in this manner under the controlling precedent of Near v. Minnesota ex rel.

1971That defect does not appear in the case at bar since the trial judge's adjudication was predicated upon the Roth test as elaborated in Memoirs and adopted in State v. Reese, supra. In Schaub, supra, the court also held that a business involved in the dissemination of publications cannot be declared a nuisance in this manner under the controlling precedent of Near v. Minnesota ex rel.

1971That defect does not appear in the case at bar since the trial judge's adjudication was predicated upon the Roth test as elaborated in Memoirs and adopted in State v. Reese, supra. In Schaub, supra, the court also held that a business involved in the dissemination of publications cannot be declared a nuisance in this manner under the controlling precedent of Near v. Minnesota ex rel.

1971Olson, 283 U.S. 697 , 51 S.Ct. 625 , 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931).

1971Olson, 283 U.S. 697 , 51 S.Ct. 625 , 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931).

1971Gen. of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 , 86 S.Ct. 975 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966)] would — or, at least, should — have a good chance of standing up under a due process attack made on it in the United States Supreme Court; and Subsection (10) of § 847.011, supra, can and should be interpreted, and the words of our obscenity statute applied, in the light of the clarification or `elaboration' of the Roth test made in Memoirs, supra." The standards asserted as proper by the State and accepted by the trial court below are those of Roth without more.

1971Gen. of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 , 86 S.Ct. 975 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966)] would — or, at least, should — have a good chance of standing up under a due process attack made on it in the United States Supreme Court; and Subsection (10) of § 847.011, supra, can and should be interpreted, and the words of our obscenity statute applied, in the light of the clarification or `elaboration' of the Roth test made in Memoirs, supra." The standards asserted as proper by the State and accepted by the trial court below are those of Roth without more.

1970Otherwise it would be altogether too easy for any prosecutor to stand before a jury, display the exhibits involved, and merely ask in summation: `Would you want your son or daughter to see or read this stuff?' A conviction in every instance would be virtually assured." On the other hand, in several recent decisions the federal courts have indicated that evidence of obscenity is not necessary under the Roth rule if the materials in question constitute "hard-core pornography." For instance, in United States v. Wild, 422 F.2d 34 (1969), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dis

1970Otherwise it would be altogether too easy for any prosecutor to stand before a jury, display the exhibits involved, and merely ask in summation: `Would you want your son or daughter to see or read this stuff?' A conviction in every instance would be virtually assured." On the other hand, in several recent decisions the federal courts have indicated that evidence of obscenity is not necessary under the Roth rule if the materials in question constitute "hard-core pornography." For instance, in United States v. Wild, 422 F.2d 34 (1969), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dis

1969And in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 , 86 S.Ct. 942 , 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (decided in 1966, the same year as Memoirs ) the court specifically recognized the Roth test as proper in determining whether materials are obscene and held that evidence that the materials were used in connection with pandering "is relevant to the application of the Roth test." In the brief painstakingly prepared on behalf of the State, the Attorney General has pointed out that two other members of the court have approved a test more liberal than that of the Roth definition as elaborated in Memoirs.

1969And in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 , 86 S.Ct. 942 , 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (decided in 1966, the same year as Memoirs ) the court specifically recognized the Roth test as proper in determining whether materials are obscene and held that evidence that the materials were used in connection with pandering "is relevant to the application of the Roth test." In the brief painstakingly prepared on behalf of the State, the Attorney General has pointed out that two other members of the court have approved a test more liberal than that of the Roth definition as elaborated in Memoirs.