Group Three: Lyli, Jerica, Jen, & Chris

→ Petitioners: Two Atlanta, Georgia movie theaters. ― Those involved: The movie theaters owners and managers. →Respondent: A local state district attorney and the solicitor for the local state trial court. ―The district attorney was Lewis R. Slaton.

 What defines obscenity?  Should obscenity be protected by the 1 st Amendment?  Where does legislation lie in deciding what obscenity is?

Q: What defines obscenity?

Q: Where does legislation lie in deciding what obscenity is?

Q: Should obscenity be protected by the 1 st Amendment?

1 st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1 st Amendment Protected freedom of assembly freedom of the press freedom of religion freedom of speech Not Protected Defamation Causing panic Incitement to crime Obscenity

What is obscenity? In MILLER, the Supreme Court established a three- part formula for distinguishing obscenity from protected expression: "(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Georgia Code Section "A person commits the offense of distributing obscene materials when he sells... or otherwise disseminates to any person any obscene material of any description, knowing the obscene nature thereof, or offers to do so, or possesses such material with the intent to do so, provided that the word 'knowing,' as used herein, shall be deemed to be either actual or constructive knowledge of the obscene contents of the subject matter, and a person has constructive knowledge of the obscene contents if he has knowledge of facts which would put a reasonable and prudent person on notice as to the suspect nature of the material."

Enjoin: to obtain a court to order that someone either do a specific act, cease a course of conduct, or henceforth be prohibited from committing a certain act -Injunction: the court order obtained that enjoins the parties

1.Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 456 (1957) →Roth who ran a literary business in N.Y. was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing the sending of “obscene, lewd, or …….. filthy” materials through mail for advertising purposes. 2. Reidel v. United States 402 U.S. 351 (1971) →This is another cases in which the Appellee, Reidel, advertised a booklet to persons over 21 years of age in the newspaper and mailing these booklets, which is in violation of 18 U.S.C § Kaplan v. California 413 U.S 115 (1973) → Petitioner, Kaplan, a proprietor of an “adult” bookstore, was convicted of violating a California obscenity statute by selling a plain- covered unillustrated book containing repetitively descriptive material of an explicitly sexual nature.

Paris Adult Theater The adult theater assumes the viewers of their shows understand the material that they are paying to view, and requires the age of 21 to avoid minors from seeing the sexual images.

Georgia State State officials still disagree with the content of the theatre, believing it to be obscene, and file to enjoin prohibit the shows, looking out for the stature of the community.

28 th December, 1970, Paris Adult Theatre begins showing two sexual films. District Attorney petitioned against the theatre as a violation of Georgia Code Section A jury found under the precedent case United States v. Reidel that the films were protected under the 1 st amendment. Supreme Court reverses the decision after the decision is appealed, finding the films to be “Obscene” and therefore not protected under free- speech.

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the decision on holding that: 1.Obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment. 2.It was not error of the lower court to require expert of the film’s obscenity, since the films were in evidence in themselves. 3.The Georgia civil procedure followed in the case (assuming the constitutionally acceptable standard for unprotected speech explained earlier) corresponded with the standards of precedent cases. 4.States have a legitimate interest in regulating commerce in obscene material and its exhibition in places of public accommodation.

Moral/Religious: → Letting this be legal or okay is against religious aspect in which one should be pure of any obscene images, to be renewed in mind. → To not fill the mind with unholy things. → It is also against moral/ religious concept because of the “Sex after marriage” view that all religions have.

Culture: makes it ok to watch adult videos in public places if 21+. There are more access to porn whether one is an adult or a minor.

Social The Hill-Link Minority Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography indicates at least an arguable correlation between obscene material and crime. Professor Bickel describes another issue as that “It concerns the tone of the society, the mode, or to use terms that have perhaps greater currency, the style and quality of life, now and in the future.”

Impact/ Implication What would happen if the decision was opposite

Group’s opinion: - We agree with the court’s decision, though we would be cautious of having the precedent taken too far.