Talk:United States v. One Book Called Ulysses/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ruling

The "Ruling" section should probably be clarified--it could stand to be more precise--and sourced. Doctorice 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is now expanded and partially sourced. It still needs:

• better intro
• better description of background, with sources
• expanded section on appellate court opinion and dissent
• legal significance
• a few sentences on literary significance

I will get to these as time (and source availability) allow. Kablammo 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that some of these points have now been addressed, but as mentioned below, the legal significance of the decision still needs more work. I will soon be able to add more on the factual background. Kablammo (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added two sentences on legal significance some time ago, so I think the basic needs identified above have now been addressed, at least in summary fashion. Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

First Amendment

"Before it was universally agreed that laws prohibiting obscenity were not in conflict with the First Amendment."

That's a nonsensical statement. Even today obscenity can be banned. What is obscene and what is protected by the first amendment are the inquiries. I don't think this case really modified First Amendment jurisprudence, but merely limited the scope of the definition of obscenity. Before, a work could be obscene merely because it had a few dirty words. Afterwards, something had to be taken as a whole, not judged by looking only at the 'dirty' parts of the work. This limits the scope of what falls under the auspices of 'obscene' (and thus not protected by the 1st Amendment). But insofar as obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, obscenity laws cannot conflict with the first Amendment. And insofar as something is either obscene or protected by the First Amendment (thus the 1st Amendment will always be equal to the defense of "not obscene"), obscenity laws will always be "in conflict" with the First Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.110.71 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement was put in the article by its original author, who is no longer active. I hung a {{cn}} tag on it, as the claim that this case modified First Amendment jurisprudence needs to be cited. If you have any citations which address the claim (that before Ulysses it was "universally" held that anti-obscenity laws comported with the First Amendment), feel free to add them to the article, or here, and I will add them. I agree with how you have framed the inquiries, and also agree that this case may not really have modified First Amendment jurisprudence. That is an area that needs further development here. The case may be more important in the literary than the legal world. Kablammo (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the uncited sentence. Two years with a {{cn}} is long enough. Kablammo (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)