Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.

The case involved Samuel Roth, a New York publisher who was convicted of violating a federal obscenity statute by mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book. Roth argued that the statute violated the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and press.

The Supreme Court upheld Roth’s conviction but redefined the test for obscenity. The Court held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment because it is not speech that is “of sufficient social importance to justify its protection.” The Court defined obscenity as “material that deals with sex in a manner that is patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value.”

The Roth decision was controversial at the time, and it remains controversial today. Some people believe that the decision goes too far in restricting free speech, while others believe that it is necessary to protect society from obscenity. The Miller test has been criticized for being too vague and giving local juries too much power to decide what is obscene.

Despite the controversy, the Roth decision remains the law of the land. It has been cited in numerous cases involving obscenity, and it has helped to shape the way that obscenity is defined and prosecuted in the United States.

Here are some of the key points of the decision:

• The First Amendment does not protect obscenity.
• Obscenity is defined as material that deals with sex in a manner that is patently offensive and utterly without redeeming social value.
• The determination of whether material is obscene is a matter of community standards.
• The government can restrict the distribution of obscene material, but it cannot prohibit the possession of obscene material for personal use.

The Roth decision was a major victory for those who wanted to restrict obscenity. However, it also led to a number of problems, such as the difficulty of defining obscenity and the power that it gave to local juries to decide what is obscene. These problems were addressed in Miller v. California (1973), which refined the definition of obscenity and gave more guidance to juries.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States#:~:text=United%20States%2C%20354%20U.S.%20476,utterly%20without%20redeeming%20social%20value.