The degree to which the Supreme Court has been willing to support the libertarian claims of obscenity litigation has varied substantially since the High Tribunal first addressed the issue. By the admission of the justices themselves, the law of obscenity has proven to be problematic, at best. In this analysis, a model is developed that accounts for the voting behavior of the justices in obscenity cases. The results suggest that the High Court is especially sensitive to the states' aim of eradicating obscene materials. Although the increased conservatism of the bench has made the justices less prone to vote against the government, there is evidence of support for the liberal position, particularly when the argument is made by some organized interest. The justices, although not necessarily protective of those against whom the government acts, recognize the need to balance the necessity of serving legitimate governmental interests against the potential threat to free expression.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baum, Lawrence.1988. Measuring policy change in the U. S. Supreme Court . American Political Science Review82:905-12.
2.
Black, Henry Campbell.1979. Black's law dictionary. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
3.
Bullock, Charles S., III, and Charles M. Lamb.1982. Toward a theory of civil rights implementation. Policy Perspectives2:376-93.
4.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright, 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U. S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review82:1109-28.
5.
Caplan, Lincoln.1987. The tenth justice. New York : Alfred A. Knopf.
6.
Casper, Jonathan D.1972. Lawyers before the Warren Court: Civil liberties and civil rights, 1957-1966. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. 1942. 315 U. S. 568.
8.
Cohen v. California. 1971. 403 U. S. 15.
9.
Croyle, James L.1983. Measuring and explaining disparities in felony sentences: Courtroom work group factors and race, sex, and socioeconomic influences in sentence severity. Political Behavior5:135-53.
10.
Dietz, Robert L., and Allan B. Taylor, eds. 1975. Note: Community standards, class actions, and obscenity under Miller v. California. Harvard Law Review88:1838-74.
11.
Hagan, John.1974. Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review8:337-63.
12.
Hoffman v. United States. 1971. 470 F. 2d. 386.
13.
Interstate Circuit v. Dallas. 1968. 390 U. S. 676.
14.
Ivers, Gregg, and Karen O'Connor.1987. Friends as foes: The amicus curiae participation and effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in criminal cases, 1969-1982. Law and Policy9:161-78.
15.
Kalven, Harry.1960. The metaphysics of the law of obscenity. In 1960 Supreme Court Review, edited by Philip B. Kurland.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Kobylka, Joseph F.1987. A court-related context for group litigation: Libertarian groups and obscenity litigation. Journal of Politics49:1061-78.
17.
Kort, Fred.1957. Predicting Supreme Court decisions mathematically: A quantitative analysis of the "right to counsel" cases. American Political Science Review51:1-12.
18.
— — —. 1973. Regression analysis and discriminant analysis: An application of R. A. Fisher's theorem to data in political science. American Political Science Review67:555-59.
19.
Lockhart, William B.1975. Escape from the chill of uncertainty: Explicit sex and the First Amendment. Georgia Law Review9:533-87.
20.
Lockhart, William B., and Robert C. McClure .1954. Literature, the law of obscenity, and the Constitution. Minnesota Law Revcew38:295-395.
21.
Madison, James. (1787) 1961. The Federalist papers. New York: New American Library of World Literature .
22.
Miller v. California. 1973. 413 U. S. 15.
23.
Mishkin v. New York. 1966. 383 U. S. 502.
24.
New York v. Ferber. 1982. 458 U. S. 747.
25.
New York Times Co. v. United States. 1971. 403 U. S. 713.
26.
O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein.1981-82. Amicus curiae participation in the U. S. Supreme Court: An appraisal of Hakman's folklore. Law and Society Review16:311-20.
27.
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton. 1973. 413 U. S. 49.
28.
Partridge, Anthony, and William B. Eldridge .1978. The Second Circuit sentencing study. In Amerccan court systems: Readings in judicial process and behavior. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
29.
Perry, H.W., Jr.1986. Deciding to decide in the U. S. Supreme Court: Bargaining, accommodation, and roses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.
30.
Roth v. United States. 1957. 354 U. S. 476.
31.
Schauer, Frederic F.1976. The law of obscenity. Washington, DC : Bureau of National Affairs.
32.
Segal, Jeffrey A.1984. Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review29:461-79.
33.
Segal, Jeffrey A.1986. Supreme Court Justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure cases. Journal of Politics48:938-55.
34.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy .1988. The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: The role of the Solicitor General. Western Political Quarterly41:553-68.
35.
Smith v. California. 1959. 361 U. S. 147.
36.
Songer, Donald.1979. Concern for policy outputs as a cue for Supreme Court decisions on certiorari. Journal of Politccs41:1185-94.
37.
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen.1963. The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction: Cue theory. In Judicial decision making, edited by Glendon SchubertNew York: Free Press.
38.
Ulmer, S. Sidney.1984. The Supreme Court's certiorari decisions: Conflict as a predictive variable. American Political Science Review78:901-11.
