This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Memoirs v. Massachusetts is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
| Memoirs v. Massachusetts | ||||||
 |
||||||
| Argued December 7–8, 1965 Decided March 21, 1966 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full case name |
A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts
|
|||||
| Citations | 383 U.S. 413 (more) 86 S. Ct. 975; 16 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2906; 1 Media L. Rep. 1390 |
|||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Since the First Amendment forbids censorship of expression of ideas not linked with illegal action, Fanny Hill cannot be proscribed. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Fortas | |||||
Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), was the United States Supreme Court decision that attempted to clarify a holding made in Roth v. United States (1957) a decade earlier regarding obscenity.
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 (1749) by John Cleland and the Court held in Memoirs v. Massachusetts that, while it may 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 — 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.
Further reading
- 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): 139–150. doi:.
External links
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 3 January 2009, at 02:46.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Memoirs v. Massachusetts".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.