State v. Fabien

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there is no First Amendment right to distribute obscene material
• holding that constitutionally-protected right to possess obscene material in the privacy of the home does not require that the Court fashion or recognize a constitutional right for commercial purveyors of obscene material to distribute or sell it
• holding that the right announced in Stanley did not apply to those who “are routinely disseminating obscenity through the mails and who have no claim, and could make none, about unwanted governmental intrusions into the privacy of their home”
• holding in the context of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 that Stanley did not require the Supreme Court to “fashion or recognize a constitutional right in people ... to distribute or sell obscene materials”
• holding in the context of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 that Stanley did not require the Supreme Court to \fashion or recognize a constitutional right in people ... to distribute or sell obscene materials\
• upholding the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits the mailing of obscene material to willing recipients who state they are adults

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).