Stanley v. Georgia
"Stanley v. Georgia" is a landmark Supreme Court case that addresses the issue of adult possession of obscene materials within the confines of one's home. The Court ruled unanimously that states cannot convict individuals solely for possessing such materials, citing protections under the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the First Amendment, which upholds freedom of expression. This decision was significant in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding obscenity, signaling a potential shift toward greater privacy rights. However, the ruling's implications have been nuanced by subsequent decisions, such as Bowers v. Hardwick, which allowed states to regulate private sexual conduct, and Osborne v. Ohio, which prohibited the possession of child pornography. These cases demonstrate the complexities of interpreting the rights to privacy and free expression in relation to obscenity. Overall, "Stanley v. Georgia" remains a pivotal point in the legal landscape concerning personal freedoms and the regulation of materials deemed obscene, reflecting broader societal debates about morality, privacy, and the limits of state power.
Stanley v. Georgia
Date: April 7, 1969
Citation: 394 U.S. 557
Issue: Obscenity
Significance: The Supreme Court broadly declared that adults have the right to possess pornographic materials in the privacy of their own homes.
The Supreme Court unanimously decided that a state could not convict adults for the mere possession of legally obscene materials in their own homes. In part, Thurgood Marshall’s opinion rests on the Fourth Amendment protection of the home from search and seizure; in other parts, it relies on the First Amendment protection of freedom of expression. Still other parts of the opinion seem to rely on an expanded right of privacy, but this last conclusion was undercut by the Court’s later decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed the state to regulate private sexual behavior. After Roth v. United States (1957), the Court’s rulings on obscenity had followed a tortuous path. For a time, some thought Stanley might represent a clear unanimous conclusion on the part of the Court on the question of possession of pornography in one’s home. However, Justice Byron R. White, writing for the majority in Osborne v. Ohio (1990), banned the mere possession of child pornography in the home and cautioned that Stanley should not be read too broadly.
