Alberts v. California (1957) marks the first time the Supreme Court
specifically ruled that obscenity does not fall under the protection of the
First Amendment.

Alexander v. United States (1993) rejected claims that the First Amendment
rights of a petitioner convicted under obscenity and racketeering laws had
been violated.

Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. (1986) upheld the application of a public
health law to close an adult bookstore. The store contended the closure
violated the First Amendment.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) struck down a ban virtual child
pornography, which, being neither obscene nor child pornography, was
protected by the First Amendment.

Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) ruled that states must provide
adequate procedural safeguards when establishing a mechanism to declare
books obscene.

In Blount v. Rizzi (1971) nullified provisions allowing the postmaster
general to refuse to mail obscene matter. The First Amendment requires
safeguards for protected expression.

Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. (1985) upheld a law concerning lewd films
and gave a First Amendment clarification of the ‘prurient interest’ prong
of the Miller test.

Butler v. Michigan (1957) struck down a law against obscene materials that
could be harmful to youths. The law violated the First Amendment by being
overbroad.

Byrne v. Karalexis (1969) stayed an injunction against prosecutions of
theater owners for showing an obscene movie. Dissenters said the movie was
protected by the First Amendment.

Cain v. Kentucky (1970) reversed a state court opinion which had said the
movie I, A Woman was obscene. Obscenity is not protected by the First
Amendment.

Commonwealth v. Sharpless (1815) led to the first obscenity prosecution in
the United States. This case took place before First Amendment rights were
extended to the states.

Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana (1989) said a state provision allowing
pretrial seizure of allegedly obscene material imposed a prior restraint,
violating the First Amendment.

In Ginsberg v. New York, the Supreme Court upheld a harmful to minors law,
affirming the illegality of selling minors expressions and depictions of
nudity and sexual content.

In Ginzburg v. United States, the Court upheld the conviction of a
publisher who had violated a federal statute by mailing advertising for
obscene publications.

In Grimm v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld on a conviction for
using the mail to convey information about where to purchase pornographic
pictures.

Grove Press v. Gerstein rejected a ban of Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer,
one of the most censored books in history, by saying it had some redeeming
literary value.

Hamling v. United States (1974) upheld convictions for mailing obscene
advertising. A dissenting justice said the conviction violated the First
Amendment.

Heller v. New York (1973) remanded an obscenity conviction after it had
set new standards for determining which materials were obscene and
unprotected by the First Amendment.

In Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) the Court overturned on First Amendment
grounds the conviction of a movie theater manager prosecuted for showing a
film deemed to be obscene.

In Jenkins v. Georgia (1974), the Court overturned the conviction of a
theater manager who had been prosecuted for showing a film deemed obscene
by local and state authorities.

Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973) affirmed that a book, even
without illustrations, can be obscene and thus unprotected by the First
Amendment.

In Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957), the Court upheld a state statute
that allowed for the destruction of obscene materials after an expedited
hearing.

Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia (1968) ruling that a warrant to seize obscene
film based on a police officer’s personal observations violated the First
Amendment.

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (1979) overturned an obscenity conviction of
an adult business after saying that the search and seizure violated the
First Amendment.

Luke Records v. Navarro (11th Cir. 1992) said the rap album As Nasty As
They Wanna Be by 2 Live Crew was not obscene and therefore was protected by
the First Amendment.

In Manual Enterprises v. Day (1962) the Supreme Court held that three
physique magazines featuring nudity were not obscene and could not be
barred from the mails.

In Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961), the Court found that the seizure of
material considered obscene violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Marks v. United States (1977) found that the Court violated due process by
applying the obscenity standards of Miller v. California rather than those
of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

Massachusetts v. Oakes (1989) involved a potentially overbroad state law
that criminalized photographing a child younger than age 18 years in a
state of nudity.

McKinney v. Alabama (1976) found that the defendant’s First Amendment right
had been violated because he was not allowed to contest the obscenity of
the materials in question.

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), the Supreme Court revisited its
obscenity test that an obscene work must be “utterly without redeeming
social value.”

In Miller v. California (1973), the Supreme Court established the test used
to determine whether expressive materials cross the line into unprotected
obscenity.

Mishkin v. New York (1966) ruled that adult materials pandering to a
deviant sexual group rather than the community at large are not protected
by the First Amendment.

New York v. Ferber (1982) is the foundational decision in which the Supreme
Court held that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography.

New York v. P.J. Video, Inc. (1986) clarified that the First Amendment does
not require a higher standard of probable cause when officials seize books
or films.

One, Inc. v. Olesen (9th Cir. 1957) ruled that a homosexual magazine was
obscene and not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment rights
of free speech and press

Osborne v. Ohio (1990) established that the First Amendment right to free
speech did not forbid states from enforcing laws against private possession
of child pornography.

The Supreme Court ruled in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) that
there is no First Amendment right to show obscene films, even to consenting
adults.

Pinkus v. United States (1978) centered on jury instructions in an
obscenity case relating to contemporary community standards. The
instructions violated due process.

Pope v. Illinois (1987) confirmed that the third prong of the Miller
obscenity test warrants the reasonable person test and should not be based
on contemporary community standards.

Rabeck v. New York (1968) dealt with First Amendment protection of explicit
material and overturned the obscenity conviction of a man charged with
selling “girlie” magazines.

Redrup v. New York (1967) outlined three guideposts for state obscenity
laws to overcome First Amendment concerns, yet the Court could not unite on
an obscenity doctrine.

In Roaden v. Kentucky (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that seizing an
obscene film without a warrant constituted impermissible prior restraint
under the First Amendment.

Rosen v. United States (1896) upheld an obscenity conviction by relying on
the Hicklin test, which would eventually be discarded in light of First
Amendment protections.

Roth v. United States (1957) resulted in a new test to determine what could
be prosecuted under obscenity laws and what was protected under the First
Amendment.

Smith v. California (1959) overturned a California law that criminalized
the sale of obscene books, saying it was too vague and infringed upon First
Amendment rights.

Smith v. United States (1977) upheld a jury decision in an obscenity case,
saying that the jury can determine community standards in evaluating
whether something was obscene.

Stanley v. Georgia (1969) the Supreme Court said that criminalizing the
mere possession of obscenity violated the First Amendment right to receive
information and ideas.

The First Amendment case Swearingen v. United States (1896) overturned the
conviction of a newspaper publisher who mailed a newspaper with an
allegedly obscene article.

Although the First Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess
pornography inside his home, the right does not extend to transporting
material, the Supreme Court said in United States v. Orito in 1973.

The Supreme Court in 1971 affirmed a federal law forbidding the
distribution of obscene material through the mail despite an earlier ruling
that held a person had a First Amendment right to possess obscene material
in their own homes. The court said in United States v. Reidel that if
people were unhappy about obscenity laws, they could seek to amend statutes.

In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a federal law that made it a crime to
create, sell or distribute images depicting animal cruelty for commercial
purposes. In United States v. Stevens, the Court said the law was overly
broad, and could encompass images of hunting and animal slaughter.

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography
law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child
pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United
States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the
law was overly broad in infringing on free speech.

Winters v. New York (1948) said a state obscenity law that prohibited the
distribution of magazines made up primarily of crime news violated the
First Amendment.