Law Commons^™

Regulating Violent Pornography, Deana Pollard

Vanderbilt Law Review

In recent years the regulation of pornography has received much attention. Traditionally, conservatives have scorned pornography of all types on the basis that pornography is immoral. More recently, some feminists have attacked pornography from a civil rights perspective,claiming that pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women that leads to discrimination against women in all aspects of life. Nonetheless, the first amendment currently protects all forms of pornography from regulation unless the material is deemed "obscene.

"Researchers, however, have shown that certain types of pornography, such as violent, sexually explicit materials, specifically harm women. The proven relationship between violent pornography …

Problems In Giving Obscenity Copyright Protection: Did Jartech And Mitchell Brothers Go Too Far?, Kurt L. Schmalz

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development traces in part II the emergence of the rule that obscenity is not copyrightable. Part III then examines the courts' reasoning in Mitchell Brothers and Jartech and analyzes the impact of these cases on copyright law. Part IV finds that although these courts properly vindicate free expression, they fail to recognize adequately the national policy against obscenity and the inconsistency of affording federal copyright protection to materials that violate federal obscenity laws. Thus, this Recent Development argues that the strong national policy against obscenity, as manifested in federal anti-obscenity statutes, requires courts in some cases to deny …

Obscenity -- Federal Statutes Prohibiting Importation And Mail Distribution Of Obscene Materials Do Not Violate First Amendment, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Near the end of the 1970-71 term, the Supreme Court considered two cases, United States v. Reidell and United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, in which constitutional challenges were raised against federal statutes regulating the distribution and importation of obscene materials. These challenges were engendered by the apparent irreconcilability of the Court's decisions in Roth v. United States and Stanley v. Georgia. In Roth, the Court held that obscenity is not within the scope of first amendment protection for speech and press. In Stanley, however, a first amendment right to possess obscene materials in one's home was recognized, and the …

Book Notes, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Book Notes --

The Strength of Government--By McGeorge Bundy Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1968. Pp. xii, 107. $3.75.

Towards a Global Federalism-- By William 0. Douglas. New York: New York University Press, 1968. Pp. xi, 177, $7.95.

Democracy, Dissent, and Disorder: The Issues and the Law-- By Robert F. Drinan New York: The Seabury Press, 1969. Pp. 152,$4.95.

The End of Obscenity: The Trials of Lady Chatterly, Tropic of Cancer, and Fanny Hill --By Charles Rembar New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. Pp. xii, 528. $8.95.

Justice on Trial-- By A.L. Todd Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. Pp. ix, …

Obscene Literature, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Obscene Literature

In 1959 the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. California'held a city and county ordinance unconstitutional for failure to require scienter on the part of a defendant. That ordinance, like many other ordinances and state statutes, subjected a bookseller to criminal prosecution for the sale of obscene literature regardless of whether he knew that it was obscene. The Court reasoned that such an ordinance would result in a bookseller's refusal to sell many publications which would not be legally suppressible but which the seller suspected of being obscene, perhaps without having read them. This self-censorship would constitute …