Citation network
Smith Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 14, 1959
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 147 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 147 (1959) Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
It is, of course, no matter that the dissemination takes place under commercial auspices. See Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. WilsonSearch
-
Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
question is involved, there is precedent in this Court that this power is not without limitations. See Lambert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
a manner tending to cause even a self-imposed restriction of free expression, we struck down its application. Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
U. S. 513 . See Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
validly exercise their rights of free expression with the expense and inconvenience of criminal prosecution. Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 88 , 310 U. S. 97 -98. Cf. Staub v. CitySearch
-
may the less be required to act at his peril here, because the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser. Winters v. NewSearch
-
here, where the question is the elimination of the mental element in an offense, is this Court's holding in Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
speech and writings are not protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press. Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
absolute standard which will not hear the distributor's plea as to the amount of care he has used. Cf. United States v. BalintSearch
-
The King v. EwartSearch
-
of a man's mind. See Pound, The Role of the Will in Law, 68 Harv.L.Rev. 1. Cf. American Communications Assn. v. DoudsSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
mean that there can be no constitutional barrier to any form of practical exercise of that power. Cf. Dean Milk Co. v. CitySearch
-
See Edwards v. PeopleSearch
-
In the Roth opinion, there was also decided Alberts v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
of obscene matter strictly adhered to the requirement of scienter. See the discussion in Attorney-General v. SimpsonSearch
-
requires scienter, see note 3 and was, of course, sustained by us in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
safeguards for speech and press therefore gain little. Their victory, if any, is Pyrrhic one. Cf. Beauharnais v. IllinoisSearch
-
Amendment made the First applicable to the State. See cases collected in the concurring opinion in Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
brings to bear against the Federal Government, against the States. See, e.g., West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
U. S. 624 , 319 U. S. 639 , and other cases collected in Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
U. S. 513 , 357 U. S. 530 (concurring opinion). But see Beauharnais v. IllinoisSearch
-
Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
scope of the power of a State to regulate what feeds the belly and what feeds the brain. The doctrine of United States v. BalintSearch
-
principle that awareness of what one is doing is a prerequisite for the infliction of punishment. See Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 164 We have not yet been told that all laws against defamation and against inciting crime by speech, see Fox v. WashingtonSearch
-
in determining what constitutes obscenity, Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. KennerleySearch
-
of obscene printed matter was clearly established as a common law offense in England in 1927 by the case of Rex v. CurlSearch
-
Str. 788, which overruled Reg. v. ReadSearch
-
had been held that such offenses were exclusively within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. See also Rex v. WilkesSearch
-
and Varick) (1777-1789) 321. In Pennsylvania, in 1815, a prosecution was founded on common law liability. Commonwealth v. SharplessSearch
-
Bay, p. 172 (1759). It is unclear whether the well known prosecution in Massachusetts in 1821, Commonwealth v. HolmesSearch
-
Commonwealth v. IsenstadtSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring. I need not repeat here all I said in my dissent in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
if, and to the extent that, it is so closely brigaded with illegal action as to be an inseparable part of it. Giboney v. EmpireSearch
-
Labor Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
Fellman, The Censorship of Books (1957). And see New American Library of World Literature v. AllenSearch
-
Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. HillSearch
-
instance with an objection to what a book portrays, not to what it teaches. Cf. Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial