|
|
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
Stanley v. Georgia No. 293 Argued January 14-15, 1969 Decided April 7, 1969 394 U.S. 557
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
Syllabus
Under authority of a warrant to search appellant’s home for evidence of his alleged bookmaking activities, officers found some films in his bedroom. The films were projected and deemed to be obscene. Appellant was arrested for their possession. He was thereafter indicted, tried, and convicted for "knowingly hav[ing] possession of . . . obscene matter" in violation of a Georgia law. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding it
not essential to an indictment charging one with possession of obscene matter that it be alleged that such possession was "with intent to sell, expose or circulate the same."
Appellant contends that the Georgia obscenity statute is unconstitutional insofar as it punishes mere private possession of obscene matter. Georgia, relying on Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, argues the statute’s validity on the ground that "obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." Id. at 485.
Held: The First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth prohibits making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. Pp. 560-568.
(a) Neither Roth, supra, nor subsequent decisions of the Court were made in the context of a statute punishing mere private possession of obscene material, but involved governmental power to prohibit or regulate certain public actions respecting obscene matter. Pp. 560-564.
(b) The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one’s privacy and control of one’s thoughts. Pp. 564-566.
(c) The State may not prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct, Roth, supra, distinguished, or proscribe such possession on the ground that it is a necessary incident to a statutory scheme prohibiting distribution, see Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147. Pp. 566-568.
224 Ga. 259, 161 S.E.2d 309, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) in 394 U.S. 557 394 U.S. 558. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HFDRUVSS9NEQ3AV.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), in 394 U.S. 557, page 394 U.S. 558. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HFDRUVSS9NEQ3AV.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). cited in 1969, 394 U.S. 557, pp.394 U.S. 558. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HFDRUVSS9NEQ3AV.
|