| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Stanley v Georgia

Page history last edited by mberry 14 years ago

 

Stanley v. Georgia

Emma Finkelstein

March 8, 2010

 

     The 1950s through the 1970s were a busy time for the United States. All at the same time we had the Civil Rights movement and the Korean War; the Anti-War protests and the Cold War. Each of these events signified the new direction that America was going in. The nation seemed to be getting more and more polarized. Civil Rights activists distrusted their government and what it was doing abroad and yet the far right felt strongly patriotic and craved more military action in the name of democracy. The push for an end to discrimination and quality among all people regardless of race was becoming ever more pressing, and active. With Vietnam Anti-War movement, the general public moved to the left as their distrust for the government grew farther and farther to the right. Every major issue seemed like it was being tackled simultaneously with very little time for the general public to process. To usher in this new period, the world  saw new leaders like it has never seen before. All fought fervently for what they believed in. Mother Theresa worked to make lives better for the poor and starving; Martin Luther King Jr. used his words to affect larger changes in this country than ever imaginable. The American people saw these heroes and responded—they began to fight for and uphold their personal beliefs and values. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Board was an example of how small moments about principles were all of a sudden monumental as they were taken all the way to the Supreme Court.

     Supreme Court Justices are people just like everybody else. They are affected by the period in which they live and by the events that occur around them. The Warren Court is a great example of a court that embodied the overall shift of society. It was one of the most “activist” courts in all of history, and it was of course ensconced in this exact period. The court made unprecedented decisions in the realm of segregation, separation of church and state, and arrest procedures in the United States. These rulings were, and in some cases still are, often criticized for its activism: “The Warren Court converted Constitutional Law into everyday politics. The Court saw their service on the Supreme Court as just another job on the national political scene."[1] Never-the-less, the time of the Warren Court is over and what they have chosen to produce is the final say on the matter, for the most part. However, Stanley v. Georgia was a case that was ruled by overcoming precedent. In this case, Roth is the closest precedent at hand. Roth was a case based upon a man mailing obscene circulars and advertising which was in conflict with a federal obscenity statute. The decision of the case was henceforth: obscene matter is not protected in the First Amendment.[2]

     The police entered Stanley's home with the legal right of a warrant based on alleged bookmaking. However, when they searched through his home, there was no evidence of any bookmaking scheme. While searching through a desk drawer, a police officer and a federal agent found three reels of eight-millimeter film. These two men proceeded to watch the film on a projector and screen in the downstairs living room. The state officer found them to be obscene, seized the film, and arrested Stanley on the charges of possession of obscene matter in violation of Georgia law. Stanley was tried and convicted by lower courts and then re-convicted by the Supreme Court of Georgia upon appeal. When brought to the Supreme Court of the United States, the justices saw it fit to hear the case on the constitutional question: Does “the Georgia obscenity statute,insofar as it punishes mere private possession of obscene matter, violate the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Is a statute imposing criminal sanctions upon the mere possession of obscene matter constitutional?”[3]

     On this matter, Georgia argues that because “obscene matter is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech”, they are free to regulate it however they see fit.[4] It asserts that the possession of obscene material will lead to deviate sexual behavior or crimes of a sexually violent nature. On this matter, Georgia claims the states have the right to protect the body of a citizen, so why would they not be able to protect a citizen's mind?[5]

     After their deliberations, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the mere possession of obscene material is not enough to incur such an invasion of privacy as Stanley endured based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In the court opinion, there were two rights of Stanley's that were invaded by the seizure of his film reels. The first was the right to receive information and ideas. There is lots of Supreme Court cases that set this precedent and state that the right to receive information is integral to a free society. The second was the right to be free from governmental intrusion on one's privacy implied in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that the precedent of Roth was not applicable in this case because whereas Roth dealt with the distribution of obscene materials breaking a federal law, in this case the material remained inside the home with no apparent intention of distribution. The precedent that Roth set was unaffected by this Court's decision.[6]

     It is in the history of the United States to rebel against governmental interference with personal thought. It was this idea that the freedoms of speech, religion, assembling, and many other were built on. It is only natural for the Supreme Court to want to protect this right, and even though the Court might morally feel the obscene material should not have been obtained, they had to stop this intrusion on freedom of thought before it started down a slippery slope. With the Warren Court's history of deciding for the separation of church and state, it is of course no surprise that they would not have allowed their own personal views, most likely propagated by religion, to dictate the freedoms of this great nation.

     This court case was important in the establishment of the right to privacy, which is possibly one of the nation's most priced and protected rights even though it is not explicitly stated in the constitution. This is an example of the power that the Supreme Court has. By ruling the way it did, which in my opinion was the correct decision, the Court drastically changed American lives. The right to be free from the government and the right to free speech and thought are key parts of American life. Without these two fundamental ideas, the nation still could be under the rule of Great Britain. However, it was this notion that set us apart from every other nation at the time. To abandon this love for liberty would be the greatest tragedy of all; thank goodness that did not happen.

Footnotes

  1. Mark Tuchnet. "Constitutional Interpretation, Character and Experience." 8 March 2010.
  2. Stanley v. Georgia. Supreme Court of the United States. 8 March 2010.
  3. Stanley v. Georgia. Supreme Court of the United States. 8 March 2010.
  4. Stanley v. Georgia. Supreme Court of the United States. 8 March 2010.
  5. Stanley v. Georgia. Supreme Court of the United States. 8 March 2010.
  6. Stanley v. Georgia. Supreme Court of the United States. 8 March 2010.

Comments (1)

mberry said

at 10:50 am on Mar 15, 2010

Well done Emma! Korean War happened in early 50s, so I just changed your dates in the first paragraph! DB

You don't have permission to comment on this page.