Memoirs v. Massachusetts

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Memoirs v. Massachusetts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Memoirs v. Massachusetts
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 7–8, 1965 Decided March 21, 1966
Full case name	A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts
Citations	383 U.S. 413 (more) 86 S. Ct. 975; 16 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2906; 1 Media L. Rep. 1390
Holding
Since the First Amendment forbids censorship of expression of ideas not linked with illegal action, Fanny Hill cannot be proscribed.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Plurality	Brennan, joined by Warren, Fortas
Concurrence	Black, joined by Stewart
Concurrence	Douglas
Dissent	Clark
Dissent	Harlan
Dissent	White
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

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).

The Roth ruling established that for a work of literature to be considered obscene, it had to be proven by censors to: 1) appeal to prurient interest, 2) be patently offensive, and 3) have no redeeming social value. The literature in Roth v. United States 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 is and is not obscene, eventually conferring more power in these matters to proposers of local community standards.

• Banned in Boston
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 383

• Scott, Joseph E.; Eitle, David J.; Skovron, Sandra Evans (1990). "Obscenity and the law: Is it possible for a jury to apply contemporary community standards in determining obscenity?". Law and Human Behavior. 14 (2): 139–150. doi:10.1007/BF01062969. S2CID 145189559.

• Works related to Memoirs v. Massachusetts at Wikisource
• Text of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e