| dbo:abstract
|
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), was the United States Supreme Court decision that attempted to clarify a holding regarding obscenity made a decade earlier in Roth v. United States (1957). Since the Roth ruling, to be declared obscene a work of literature had to be proven by censors to: 1) appeal to prurient interest, 2) be patently offensive, and 3) have no redeeming social value. The book in question in this case was Fanny Hill (or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, 1749) by John Cleland and the Court held in Memoirs v. Massachusetts that, while it might fit the first two criteria (it appealed to prurient interest and was patently offensive), it could not be proven that Fanny Hill had no redeeming social value. The judgment favoring the plaintiff continued that it could still be held obscene under certain circumstances – for instance, if it were marketed solely for its prurient appeal. Memoirs v. Massachusetts led to more years of debate about what was and was not obscene and the conferring of more power in these matters to proposers of local community standards. (en)
- メモワール判決（メモワールはんけつ）とは、1966年、アメリカ連邦最高裁判所が、英国の小説『ファニー・ヒル』を猥褻としたマサチューセッツ州の判断が誤りであるとして、これを破棄した判決（383 U.S. 413 (1966)）である。 当国ではこの事件のことを、"『回想』対マサチューセッツ州事件"(Memoirs v. Massachusetts)と呼び、好色文学に対する検閲との戦いの代表例となっている。 (ja)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 3812 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedatea
|
- 0001-12-07 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:arguedateb
| |
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-03-21 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
|
- White (en)
- Clark (en)
- Harlan (en)
|
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Since the First Amendment forbids censorship of expression of ideas not linked with illegal action, Fanny Hill cannot be proscribed. (en)
|
| dbp:joinconcurrence
| |
| dbp:joinplurality
| |
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:plurality
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- メモワール判決（メモワールはんけつ）とは、1966年、アメリカ連邦最高裁判所が、英国の小説『ファニー・ヒル』を猥褻としたマサチューセッツ州の判断が誤りであるとして、これを破棄した判決（383 U.S. 413 (1966)）である。 当国ではこの事件のことを、"『回想』対マサチューセッツ州事件"(Memoirs v. Massachusetts)と呼び、好色文学に対する検閲との戦いの代表例となっている。 (ja)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), was the United States Supreme Court decision that attempted to clarify a holding regarding obscenity made a decade earlier in Roth v. United States (1957). Memoirs v. Massachusetts led to more years of debate about what was and was not obscene and the conferring of more power in these matters to proposers of local community standards. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- メモワール判決 (ja)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
