Mapp v. Ohio: what is obscenity?

[Alt+F4]

Not sure where to post this but social issues seems correct enough.

For those not familiar, the 1961 Supreme Court of Mapp v. Ohio involved a woman convicted of possessing obscene materials after a police search of her home for a fugitive. The Court overturned her conviction due to the fact that the search was warrentless, therefore illegal.

My question regarding this case is, what exactly was the "obscene materials" that were seized? The most I could discover is that it was "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures and photographs.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is based on community standards I think it's a relevant issue as to what the specfics in this case were.

Thanks in advance for any information.

[This Guy]

The Supreme Court ruling on obscenity wasn't until 1973, so the particulars of the case you mention did not fall under that ruling.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED105880&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED105880

A short search for what the obscene material was didn't find a description (but maybe you already knew that :))

ETA:But rumor is it involved Shemp, and goats. ;)

[Lonewulf]

Wait... police can arrest you for owning "obscene" materials in the privacy of your own home?

[TragicMonkey]

Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.

[This Guy]

OK, there was a 1957 ruling -

"1957 Roth v. U.S.
The ruling based obscenity decisions on whether a publication appeals to "prurient interests." The Court also said that obscene material is that which lacks any "redeeming social importance."

So if the material in question had not "redeeming social importance" it was obscene by this ruling's definition.

Of course, if only as a warning to goat farmers, I think depictions of Shemp and goats has "redeeming social importance". But, that's just my opinion ;)

[This Guy]

Wait... police can arrest you for owning "obscene" materials in the privacy of your own home?

I believe, depending on your local laws, and if done without violating your various protected rights, yes they can.

But one of our lawyer types can probably give more valid information.

[Lonewulf]

I believe, depending on your local laws, and if done without violating your various protected rights, yes they can.

But one of our lawyer types can probably give more valid information.

So, wait.

If I have pornography on my computer, does that mean that I could be thrown in jail if police search my house/computer? If I have printed porn pictures in my attic or basement? If I have a painting done by someone that society somehow "deems" as having no "social importance"?

I thought obscenity laws were one thing when they were used to tear down musicals that people found offensive (which I felt was silly enough, and I question whether or not such an act was constitutional), but now we're talking about what people can and cannot have hanging up in their own homes.

[casebro]

I remember one of the loop holes for "redeeming social values".

One of the kids in study hall had a dirty novel. Each line of print was about 40% overlaid with a line of print from a fairy tail. So you got two 'fantasy stories' for the price of one. But it was tough to argue that the book had "no redeeming social values'. "What? Alice In "Wonderland has no RSV?"

It was hard to read- especially from two desks away...

[This Guy]

So, wait.

If I have pornography on my computer, does that mean that I could be thrown in jail if police search my house/computer? If I have printed porn pictures in my attic or basement? If I have a painting done by someone that society somehow "deems" as having no "social importance"?

I thought obscenity laws were one thing when they were used to tear down musicals that people found offensive (which I felt was silly enough, and I question whether or not such an act was constitutional), but now we're talking about what people can and cannot have hanging up in their own homes.

Again, I'll throw out the "I'm no lawyer" defense.

But I believe that if there is a complaint (a neighbor sees that picture of Shemp and the goat you have hanging on the living room wall, through your window), you MIGHT be subject to arrest.

I'm certainly not familiar with the laws involved enough to state that as fact. I do believe there would have to be a reason for the police to suspect an offense though. Probable cause would, I believe, apply.

[TragicMonkey]

And of course attempts to legislate moral judgments lead to bizarre results. Like cities with anti-nudity ordinances, so exotic dancers can get away with full frontal nudity as long as they keep their socks on, or wear a hat.

[Bikewer]

There is a lot of difference from state to state since the SCOTUS came up with it's "community standards" idea.
In general, I believe that private posession of pron is legal, aside from child pornography. The law generally regulates sale, distribution, display, etc.

There has been a sorry record of convictions for "obscenity". Folks who run dirty-book-and-movies stores have been dragged into court again and again, and juries have been unable to decide if the material offered for sale meets the legal criteria.

We had a well-publicized case here where an enterprising couple were producing movies...Of themselves. Sort of a home-based porn industry.
A local and rather zealous prosecutor got a warrant and had the whole shebang seized and the couple arrested.
Within a couple of months, the prosecution was dropped and all the movie-making equipment and films all had to be returned.

[Lonewulf]

And of course attempts to legislate moral judgments lead to bizarre results. Like cities with anti-nudity ordinances, so exotic dancers can get away with full frontal nudity as long as they keep their socks on, or wear a hat.

Mmmmm...



...Socks...

There is a lot of difference from state to state since the SCOTUS came up with it's "community standards" idea.
In general, I believe that private posession of pron is legal, aside from child pornography. The law generally regulates sale, distribution, display, etc.

There has been a sorry record of convictions for "obscenity". Folks who run dirty-book-and-movies stores have been dragged into court again and again, and juries have been unable to decide if the material offered for sale meets the legal criteria.

We had a well-publicized case here where an enterprising couple were producing movies...Of themselves. Sort of a home-based porn industry.
A local and rather zealous prosecutor got a warrant and had the whole shebang seized and the couple arrested.
Within a couple of months, the prosecution was dropped and all the movie-making equipment and films all had to be returned.

The problem with this is that the court process is costly and harmful to people, even if they aren't found guilty. :/

Sigh. Some people's children.

[Bikewer]

It's definitely a harrassment technique. Years ago, we had a prosecutor in the county here and a prosecutor in the city who were apparently both trying to out-do each other in terms of "cleaning up" the wide variety of video-rental stores that had popped up with the popularity of the then-new VCR.
Both these guys were making well-publicized raids of video stores, seizing all the movies, making undercover "buys"....The whole nine yards.

Often even after the cases had been thrown out of court or the individuals found not guilty, they would drag out returning the seized items until court orders were produced.

This all went on until the city prosecutor was found to be using public funds to patronize prostitutes, and had a rather large collection of porn himself; mostly culled from seized "evidence".....

More hypocrisy......

[Lonewulf]

It's definitely a harrassment technique. Years ago, we had a prosecutor in the county here and a prosecutor in the city who were apparently both trying to out-do each other in terms of "cleaning up" the wide variety of video-rental stores that had popped up with the popularity of the then-new VCR.
Both these guys were making well-publicized raids of video stores, seizing all the movies, making undercover "buys"....The whole nine yards.

Often even after the cases had been thrown out of court or the individuals found not guilty, they would drag out returning the seized items until court orders were produced.

This all went on until the city prosecutor was found to be using public funds to patronize prostitutes, and had a rather large collection of porn himself; mostly culled from seized "evidence".....

More hypocrisy......
What IS it with people that are into sexual stuff, going after the same sexual stuff they're after?

It makes no logical sense. They're trying to get rid of stuff that they personally enjoy? Sheesh, that's like me advocating banning any games with violence in it while playing Doom.

[Bikewer]

I'm sure there's some sort of weird rationalization going on in these people's heads....Just can't figure out what it is.
Just like our august Senator railing against homosexuality while soliciting sex in men's rooms...

"I am not Gay!"

Walks like duck....

[pipelineaudio]

What IS it with people that are into sexual stuff, going after the same sexual stuff they're after?

It makes no logical sense. They're trying to get rid of stuff that they personally enjoy? Sheesh, that's like me advocating banning any games with violence in it while playing Doom.

its more of the same from the busybodies and nannies who are trying to ressurrect the Temperance movement, and the nicotene nazis

"you are too stupid to decide whats good for you and which risks you want to take"

[strathmeyer]

Wait... police can arrest you for owning "obscene" materials in the privacy of your own home?

If this surprises you, just wait 'til we get to "Community Standards".

[slingblade]

If this surprises you, just wait 'til we get to "Community Standards".

There are also a few states that forbid the sale of vibrators. Wiki (I know, I know!) says Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana and Massachusetts.

However, and hilariously to me, it also says:

In the state of Texas, the sale of devices for sexual stimulation such as vibrators and dildos is technically illegal, but many stores will sell such items provided that the customer sign a statement that the device will only be used for educational purposes.

So....that means we can have them at school, but not at home?

:p:D:p

[Bikewer]

I loved that bit; there was a news segment just the other day. Package your "Pleasure Probe 9000" as a therapeutic message tool, and it's fine......

[fuelair]

It's been a while, but I believe Stanley V. Georgia is the SC case that said Porn in the home was ok. This was when the Supreme Courts had balls instead of anuses leading it.
At this point it isn't worth the paper to wipe it with.

[This Guy]

There are also a few states that forbid the sale of vibrators. Wiki (I know, I know!) says Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana and Massachusetts.

However, and hilariously to me, it also says:



So....that means we can have them at school, but not at home?

:p:D:p

Now that might be a class worth going back to school for!

If they would allow me to "audit" the class that is.


;)

[Lonewulf]

If this surprises you, just wait 'til we get to "Community Standards".
Actually, obscenity laws don't surprise me. I already knew about them, and I still think that a lot of them are BS. If someone throws on a play or musical that you don't like, then don't go see it. Pure and simple. I already knew about the "community standards" BS.

However, what DOES surprise me is the "privacy" thing. I was under the impression that most, if not all, of obscenity laws are based on public settings, not private. I mean, I can't post a playboy poster in public, but in my bedroom, it's a-okay.

Crossing the line from public into private really pisses me off.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There is a lot of difference from state to state since the SCOTUS came up with it's "community standards" idea.
In general, I believe that private posession of pron is legal, aside from child pornography. The law generally regulates sale, distribution, display, etc.

There has been a sorry record of convictions for "obscenity". Folks who run dirty-book-and-movies stores have been dragged into court again and again, and juries have been unable to decide if the material offered for sale meets the legal criteria.

We had a well-publicized case here where an enterprising couple were producing movies...Of themselves. Sort of a home-based porn industry.
A local and rather zealous prosecutor got a warrant and had the whole shebang seized and the couple arrested.
Within a couple of months, the prosecution was dropped and all the movie-making equipment and films all had to be returned.

Wait, the prosecutor wasn't "Larry Johnson", was he? Or was that a different case? ;)

[Andronicus]

Wait... police can arrest you for owning "obscene" materials in the privacy of your own home?


In "the privacy of the home" the government does not have the power to prosecute obcenity. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). On the other hand, an unmarked brown envelope in the mail with obcenity in it can be outlawed. United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 130 (1973). I'm paraphrashing from Lawence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 917 (Foundation Press, 1988 ed.).

So I guess you're fine once you actually sneak it into your home. Note that this doesn't apply to kiddie porn (proof the law isn't always an ass), intellectual property theft, or keep the police from seizing porn as part of their sexual battery case.

Please note I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I certainly don't play one on television.

[Lonewulf]

In "the privacy of the home" the government does not have the power to prosecute obcenity. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). On the other hand, an unmarked brown envelope in the mail with obcenity in it can be outlawed. United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 130 (1973). I'm paraphrashing from Lawence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 917 (Foundation Press, 1988 ed.).

But what about the OP?

For those not familiar, the 1961 Supreme Court of Mapp v. Ohio involved a woman convicted of possessing obscene materials after a police search of her home for a fugitive. The Court overturned her conviction due to the fact that the search was warrentless, therefore illegal.
Mapp vs. Ohio, woman had obscene materials in her home and it went to court. The only reason why the conviction was overturned is because the searchers didn't have a warrant.

ETA: I looked up Wikipedia.

Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air (claiming it was the warrant) and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. One officer reached down her blouse and grabbed it. They tried to get the "warrant" back. The officers then handcuffed her. They searched her entire house and when they reached her basement they found a chest filled with pornographic material.[2] The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material.[2] At her trial, Mapp was found guilty based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the warrant but they could not show one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

[Andronicus]

Mapp was issued in 1961 (and was a search and seizure without a warrant case). Stanley wasn't issued until 1969. Presumably after Stanley the police couldn't (well, shouldn't) have arrested Mapp for the obscene materials in her home.

[Lonewulf]

Ah, I see now.

Well, glad that's straightened out then.

[chran]

America ... :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

America ... :rolleyes:

Yeah. So horrible, a country that learns from it's mistakes and modifies silly laws as it becomes apparent they're silly...

[chran]

Yeah. So horrible, a country that learns from it's mistakes and modifies silly laws as it becomes apparent they're silly...
I think you're missing the point.

The fact that the law was even made in the first place is :rolleyes:

It's good that it's been changed since, but of course there are still :rolleyes:-laws in America. No, you don't get any examples - you know there are.

[Lonewulf]

If it's been changed since (what? do you expect me to do RESEARCH?)
Considering that people mentioned it already, up above, I wonder why your confusion...

[chran]

Considering that people mentioned it already, up above, I wonder why your confusion... Huh? Guess I missed that.

I've fixed the post.

[Lonewulf]

There are :rolleyes:-ing laws in every country, as far as I know. It would take a lot for me to be convinced that a country's laws are "perfect"...

[TragicMonkey]

Just be glad we aren't the UK, where you can't legally consent to S&M. That's right, they can arrest someone who spanks you even if you ask them to!

[666]

Mmmmm...



...Socks...

I knew someone must appreciate my sig. :cool:

[Andronicus]

I still think its silly a person can have obcenity in your home, but risks criminal charges when it is sent through the mail in a plain brown envelope with no inappropriate wording. Oh well, I guess the internet makes it irrelevant for all practical purposes.

[Lonewulf]

I still think its silly a person can have obcenity in your home, but risks criminal charges when it is sent through the mail in a plain brown envelope with no inappropriate wording. Oh well, I guess the internet makes it irrelevant for all practical purposes.

Unless you pay for pornography-related material via Paypal. Then your account is locked up and your money confiscated! =D