 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Memoirs v. Massachusetts" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| 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 | 383U.S.413 (more) 86 S. Ct. 975; 16L. Ed. 2d 1; 1966U.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 | |
| Plurality | Brennan, joined by Warren, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Black, joined by Stewart |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Dissent | Clark |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Dissent | White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), is aUnited States Supreme Court decision that attempted to clarify a holding regardingobscenity made a decade earlier inRoth v. United States (1957).
TheRoth ruling established that for a work of literature to be considered obscene, it had to be proven bycensors to: 1) appeal toprurient interest, 2) be patently offensive, and 3) have no redeeming social value. The literature inRoth v. United States wasFanny Hill (orMemoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, 1749) byJohn Cleland and the Court held inMemoirs v. Massachusetts that, while it might fit the first two criteria (it appealed toprurient interest and waspatently offensive), it could not be proven thatFanny 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.
TheMemoirs standard for obscenity prompted ongoing debate over the definition of obscenity and was superseded by the Supreme Court's 1973 decision inMiller v. California, which established theMiller test, a more flexible three‑prong test based on localcommunity standards.
Works related toMemoirs v. Massachusetts at Wikisource | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theWarren Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |
