[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/memoirs-v-massachusetts-wikipedia\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/memoirs-v-massachusetts-wikipedia\/","headline":"Memoirs v. Massachusetts – Wikipedia","name":"Memoirs v. Massachusetts – Wikipedia","description":"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1966 United States Supreme Court case Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), was the","datePublished":"2022-08-23","dateModified":"2022-08-23","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.wikimedia.org\/static\/images\/wmf-logo.png","url":"https:\/\/www.wikimedia.org\/static\/images\/wmf-logo.png","height":"101","width":"135"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/memoirs-v-massachusetts-wikipedia\/","about":["Wiki"],"wordCount":3797,"articleBody":"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia1966 United States Supreme Court caseMemoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), was the United States Supreme Court decision that attempted to clarify a holding regarding obscenity made a decade earlier in Roth v. United States (1957).Since the Roth ruling, to be declared obscene a work of literature had to be proven by censors to: 1) appeal to prurient interest, 2) be patently offensive, and 3) have no redeeming social value.  The book in question in this case was Fanny Hill (or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, 1749) by John Cleland and the Court held in Memoirs v. Massachusetts that, while it might fit the first two criteria (it appealed to prurient interest and was patently offensive), it could not be proven that Fanny Hill had no redeeming social value.  The judgment favoring the plaintiff continued that it could still be held obscene under certain circumstances\u00a0\u2013  for instance, if it were marketed solely for its prurient appeal.Memoirs v. Massachusetts led to more years of debate about what was and was not obscene and the conferring of more power in these matters to proposers of local community standards.Table of ContentsSee also[edit]Further reading[edit]References[edit]External links[edit]See also[edit]Further reading[edit]Scott, Joseph E.; Eitle, David J.; Skovron, Sandra Evans (1990). “Obscenity and the law: Is it possible for a jury to apply contemporary community standards in determining obscenity?”. Law and Human Behavior. 14 (2): 139\u2013150. doi:10.1007\/BF01062969. S2CID\u00a0145189559.References[edit]External links[edit]li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:\" \"counter(listitem)\"a0 \"}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:\" (\"counter(listitem)\"a0 \"}]]>.navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-group,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-image,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-list{border-top:2px solid #fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title{background-color:#ccf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-title{background-color:#ddf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-abovebelow{background-color:#e6e6ff}.mw-parser-output .navbox-even{background-color:#f7f7f7}.mw-parser-output .navbox-odd{background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ul,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ul{padding:0.125em 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbar{display:block;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title .navbar{float:left;text-align:left;margin-right:0.5em}]]>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}]]>UnprotectedspeechIncitementand seditionLibel andfalse speechFighting words andthe heckler’s vetoTrue threatsObscenityRosen v. United States (1896)United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)Roth v. United States (1957)One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)Smith v. California (1959)Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)Ginzburg v. United States (1966)Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)Redrup v. New York (1967)Ginsberg v. New York (1968)Stanley v. Georgia (1969)United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)Miller v. California (1973)Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)American Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)Reno v. ACLU (1997)United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)United States v. American Library Ass’n (2003)Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)United States v. Williams (2008)American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)United States v. Stevens (2010)Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n (2011)FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)Speech integralto criminal conductStrict scrutinyVaguenessSymbolic speechversus conductContent-basedrestrictionsContent-neutralrestrictionsCompelled speechCompelled subsidyof others’ speechGovernment grantsand subsidiesGovernmentas speakerLoyalty oathsSchool speechPublic employeesHatch Act andsimilar lawsLicensing andrestriction of speechCommercial speechValentine v. Chrestensen (1942)Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations (1973)Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)Carey v. Population Services International (1977)Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)In re Primus (1978)Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)Friedman v. Rogers (1979)Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (1980)Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)In re R.M.J. (1982)Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California (1986)Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind (1988)State University of New York v. Fox (1989)Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)Edenfield v. Fane (1993)United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n (2005)Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)Matal v. Tam (2017)Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)Campaign financeand political speechAnonymous speechState actionOfficial retaliationBoycottsPrisonsPrior restraintsand censorshipPrivacyTaxation andprivilegesDefamationBroadcast mediaCopyrighted materialsWikimedia ErrorOur servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem.Please try again in a few\u00a0minutes.See the error message at the bottom of this page for more\u00a0information. "},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/memoirs-v-massachusetts-wikipedia\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Memoirs v. Massachusetts – Wikipedia"}}]}]