Leis, C.L. (2001). United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. – Sexually Explicit Signal Bleed and §505 of the CDA: Unable to Overcome Strict Scrutiny but Will Strict Scrutiny be Able to Overcome the Future?. Unpublished manuscript, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from https://culsnet.law.capital.edu/LawReview/BackIssues/30-4/Leis.pdf
2905.34: "No person shall knowingly . . . have in his possession or under his control an obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, magazine, pamphlet, paper, writing,
During the 1930’s, nine young black men were falsely accused of raping two white women on a freight train near Paint Rock, Alabama. Ruby Bates and Victoria Price accused Charlie Weems, Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Olen Montgomery, Willie Roberson, Haywood Patterson, Andy and Roy Wright, and Eugene Williams of this crime. The boys were arrested on March 25, 1931. All but Roy Wright were sentenced to the death penalty. They were all convicted on very little evidence. It came down to two white women’s words against the black men’s. After many lawyers failed to win the defendant’s release in 1936, a plea bargain was arranged where four of the defendants were released. However, the remaining five continued to carry out their sentence. Because there was no real evidence to keep them in jail, the last defendant was freed in 1950 (Kelly 1-2).
...e’s shoes using imagination, it is difficult to decide on which ideals are equal and which are not and equality promotes respect. Martha Nussbaum takes great caution and goes into great detail to educate the world on the fact that just because a behavior is found to be disgusting, it shouldn’t be used as the deciding factor for a regulation or a ban. As Nussbaum puts it “constitutional law expresses our deepest sense, as a society, of what freedom and equality are; of what it means to have fundamental rights; of what it means to have certain protected areas of both liberty and equality that are seen as inherent in the very idea of human dignity” (Nussbaum 208). Constitutional law should be based of what is equal for all and what promotes libertarian interests among the people. Discrimination shouldn’t get in the way of letting this occur especially through disgust.
Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the early hours of January 30, 1943, Robert “Bobby” Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Screws, Frank Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley while in their custody for the alleged theft of a tire; Screws, Jones and Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, night policeman, and a civilian deputized specifically for the arrest. Without ever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a result of a fractured skull shortly after his arrival at an Albany hospital that morning. The NAACP and FBI investigated Hall’s death in the following months and federal charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for violation of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person may “under color of any law … willfully” deprive a person of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” After being found guilty in the lower courts, the defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court on appeal, alleging that they had violated a state rather than federal law and, consequently, could not be held liable under Section 20. The Supreme Court’s central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to interpret the intent and breadth of Section 20 in order to judge its constitutionality; in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the definition of state action and the indefinite nature of the rights protected by the statute. Such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along deep constitutional lines; while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the lower co...
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Weems v. United States (1910) set a judicial precedent for showing that punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed and allowed courts to decide what is “cruel and unusual”. Lower courts allowed the VIS and that use sometimes came under question. Thus the case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court to review. In Booth v. Maryland (1987) and Gathers v. South Carolina (1989) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that VIS could potentially lead to harsher sentences and yet upon further review reconsider their stance on VIS and overturn their decisions and concluded that the Eight Amendment was not violated by victim Impact statements on the ground that such statements did not lead to cruel and unusual punish...