Law Commons^™

Obscenity, 1966: The Marriage Of Obscenity Per Se And Obscenity Per Quod, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

In a widely admired article, Harry Kalven argued that the New York Times case embodies the "central meaning" of the First Amendment. On his view, in a free, open society, maximum protection must be accorded to "political" speech. He concluded that the right freely to criticize the government must lie at the center of any adequate theory of the First Amendment.

It is not so easy to make a comparable claim about the relationship between obscenity and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's conception of obscenity is partially responsible. While the Court in Roth v. United States (1957) explicitly barred …