Alberts v. California
Synopsis
§1.1 Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
§1.2 David Alberts claims that his First Amendment rights were violated by the California Penal Code, Section 331.
§1.3 David Alberts was found guilty in California for selling and distributing obscene books.
§1.4 The Court focuses on California Penal Code, Section 331, which Alberts is charged with violating, and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), which was combined with Albert’s case.
§1.5 The Court;s majority opinion argues that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material, a precedent which is set by this case and by Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
§1.6 The Court’s majority opinion holds that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the state of California and against Alberts.
§1.7 The Court’s majority opinion was a very rhetorically strategic move to provide the legal historical context of obscenity and the First Amendment to show how they came to their conclusion in Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment.
Explanation
§1.1.1 Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
§1.2.1 David Alberts claims that the California Penal Code, Section 331 violates his freedom of speech and freedom of press rights that are guaranteed to him by the First Amendment by criminalizing the selling and distribution of obscene literature.
§1.3.1 David Alberts was charged with violating the California Penal Code via his mail-order business, based in Los Angeles, which sold sexually explicit materials. The California Penal Code, Section 311, that Alberts was charged with violating states that any person who willfully and lewdly distributes or advertises any obscene or indecent writing, paper, book, or picture was guilty of a misdemeanor. Alberts was found guilty by the Municipal Court of the Beverly Hills Judicial District in California. Alberts claims that the California Penal Code’s obscenity provision that criminalizes the selling and distribution of obscene literature violates the freedom of speech and freedom of press that are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
§1.4.1 First Amendment
§1.4.1.1 The Free Speech Clause is included in the First Amendment. This states that Congress shall pass no law that infringes upon the freedom of speech.
§1.4.2 California Penal Code, Section 311
§1.4.2.1 This is the statue that Alberts was charged with violating. This states that it is a crime to knowingly distribute, possess, produce, publicize, duplicate, sale or print child pornography in any form. Distributing, viewing, producing, downloading, and possessing child pornography are all separately defined in this statue. Each one of these qualifies as a crime in its own right and are all chargeable as different crimes.
§1.4.3 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
§1.4.3.1 This is about another man, Roth, who also operated a book-selling business and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute. This case was combined with Alberts. The Court held that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment, and thus, Roth’s rights were not violated by the federal statute.
§1.5.1 The Court’s majority opinion states throughout history, it has been documented that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. Hence, the Court argues that they had always assumed that obscenity was not protected by the freedoms of speech and press in the First Amendment, as it does not have any redeeming social or political importance.
§1.5.2 Since the Calfornia Penal Code, Section 331 states that is it is a crime to knowingly distribute, possess, produce, publicize, duplicate, sale or print child pornography in any form, and Alberts was sellign and publishing sexually explicit materials, Alberts was charged in violation of this California Penal Code.
§1.5.3 Due to the Court’s majority opinion deciding that obscenity was not a protection guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Court affirmed the guilt verdict for Alberts.
§1.6.1 Majority Opinion: The Court’s majority opinion was held by Justice Brennan. Justice Brennan held, in a 6 - 3 vote, that obscenity was not within the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press. The Court’s majority opinion recognizes that the First Amendment was never intended to protect every utterance or form of expression. Thus, the Court created a test for obscenity cases that states “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.” Justice Brennan also argues that, with the difficulty of defining obscenity, the Court had consistently held that the lack of provision wasn’t offensive to the requirements of due process.
§1.6.2 Concurring Opinion 1: The Court’s majority opinion was concurred by Chief Justice Warren. Justice Warren agreed with the Court’s ruling on both Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). Justice Warren argued that Justice Brennan’s test was too broad. Justice Warren recognizes that throughout legal history on the application of obscenity laws demonstrates that the government’s power can be invoked against art, literature,scientific treatises, and works that excite social controversy.
§1.6.3 Concurring Opinion 2: The Court’s majority opinion was also concurred by Justice Harlan who agreed with the Court’s ruling on Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) but not Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). Justice Harlan argues that the Court’s decision should have been more specific. Justice Harlan claims that the Court was too broad in its decision on obscenity, which could make it too difficult for states to enforce their own obscenity statutes in the future. Justice Harlan also claims that the Court fails to differentiate between the different factors involved in constitutional adjudication of state and federal obscenity cases.
§1.6.4 Dissenting Opinion: The Court’s majority opinion was dissent by Justice Douglas, who was joined by Justice Black. Both Justice Douglas and Justice Black disagreed with the Court’s majority opinion on both Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). Justice Douglas argues, under the First Amendment, that the people of the United States are capable of rejecting harmful/poisonous literature and to sort out the try from the false in theology, economics, or any other field on their own without the interference and censorship of the government .
§1.7.1 I think that it was a very strategic move on the Court’s part to first provide context in the history of obscenity and why, when the First Amendment was created, that it was not considered a part of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.
§1.7.1.1 This was a very strategic move because it provided context into how obscenity had been seen and considered in the courts before these cases. It also provided us context into when the First Amendment was created, but also that it was created “to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” The Court’s majority opinion states that while “all idea having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests.” After explaining what is covered under the First Amendment protections, the Court’s majority opinion then states that “implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.” This argument alone, provides insight into why the Court rules obscenity as not protected under the First Amendment, and thus affirms Alberts guilty verdict.
§1.7.2 I also think that it was a very strategic move on the Court’s part to provide separate sections in their argument for Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
§1.7.2.1 This was very smart because it made it very clear to readers to see when each case is being discussed. It was also very smart considering both of these cases were combined and discussed at the same time. If there was no differentiation between the two, it would get very confusing to understand which case was being discussed. This structure is followed in the majority opinion and concurring opinions.
§1.7.3 The Court’s majority opinion was a very rhetorically strategic move to provide the legal historical context of obscenity and the First Amendment to show how they came to their conclusion in Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment.
Comments