Misplaced Pages

Rosen v. United States

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Not to be confused with United States v. Rosen.

1896 United States Supreme Court case
Rosen v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 29, 1895
Decided January 27, 1896
Full case nameLew Rosen v. United States
Citations161 U.S. 29 (more)16 S. Ct. 434; 40 L. Ed. 606; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2135
Holding
The Court upheld the conviction of the defendant to 13 months hard labor and a fine of $1 for allegedly using the United States Postal Service to send material that was deemed "obscene, lewd and lascivious".
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown · George Shiras Jr.
Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham
Case opinions
MajorityHarlan, joined by Fuller, Field, Gray, Brewer, Brown, Peckham
DissentWhite, joined by Shiras

Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of obscenity. In a decision written by Justice Harlan, the Court upheld the conviction of the defendant to 13 months hard labor and a fine of $1 for allegedly using the United States Postal Service to send material that was deemed "obscene, lewd and lascivious".

Background

It had been alleged that the defendant had, on April 24, 1893, within the Southern District of New York:

unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly deposit and cause to be deposited in the post office of the City of New York, for mailing and delivery by the post office establishment of the United States, a certain obscene, lewd, and lascivious paper, which said paper then and there, on the first page thereof, was entitled 'Tenderloin Number, Broadway,' and on the same page were printed the words and figures following, that is to say: 'Volume II, number 27; trademark, 1892; by Lew Rosen; New York, Saturday, April 15, 1893; ten cents a copy, $4.00 a year in advance,' and thereupon, on the same page, is the picture of a cab, horse, driver, and the figure of a female, together (underneath the said picture) with the word 'Tenderloineuse,' and the said paper consists of twelve pages, minute description of which, with the pictures therein and thereon would be offensive to the court and improper to spread upon the records of the court because of their obscene, lewd, and indecent matters, and the said paper, on the said twenty-fourth day of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, was enclosed in a wrapper, and addressed as follows, that is to say: 'Mr. Geo. Edwards, P.O. Box 510, Summit, N.J.' -- against the peace of the United States and their dignity, and contrary to the statute of the United States in such case made and provided.

The defendant, Lew Rosen, had been found guilty and appealed his conviction, arguing that the material the grand jury had found to be obscene had not been specifically identified on the record.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan found that because the paper in question had been admitted into evidence and the defendant had not objected, and because he could have requested a bill of particulars that described the paper but chose not to, the indictment sufficiently informed the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Justices White and Shiras dissented.

See also

References

  1. 161 U. S. 32, 33.
  2. 161 U. S. 34-41.

External links

U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Unprotected speech
Clear and
present danger

and imminent
lawless action
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats and
threatening the
President of the
United States
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Government grants
and subsidies
Government speech
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance and
political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Categories:
Rosen v. United States Add topic