<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: First Amendment Issues - Obscenity, State Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/obscenity-state/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Alberts v. California - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1957 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Alberts conducted a mail-order business which sold sexually explicit materials. He was convicted in a Municipal Court in California on a misdemeanor complaint which found him guilty of selling lewd and obscene books and of composing and publishing an obscene advertisement for his products.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the California Penal Code's obscenity provisions, criminalizing the selling and distribution of obscene literature, violate the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>61_19570422-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_61/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_61/argument/61_19570422-argument.mp3" length="14397214" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Glen Theatre and the Kitty Kat Lounge in South Bend, Indiana, operated entertainment establishments with totally nude dancers. An Indiana law regulating public nudity required dancers to wear "pasties" and a "G-string" when they perform. The Theatre and Lounge sued to stop enforcement of the statute.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does a state prohibition against complete nudity in public places violate the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>90-26_19910108-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_26/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_26/argument/90-26_19910108-argument.mp3" length="13348161" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1985 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>84-28_19850220-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_84_28/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_84_28/argument/84-28_19850220-argument.mp3" length="12954843" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Littleton required adult businesses to apply for a permit to operate from the city. If the city denied the license, the business could appeal to a state district court under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Z.J. Gifts, an adult bookstore, wanted to operate in a place not zoned for adult businesses. Rather than apply for a license, they challenged the licensing law itself as unconstitutional, claiming that the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure provide merely for prompt judicial review of city denial, not for a prompt judicial decision. Because stores denied a license cannot operate until the court has made its decision, they could potentially be forced to wait indefinitely for a license based solely on the content of the material they intend to sell. This, Z.J. argued, violated the Supreme Court's holding in &lt;em&gt;Freedman v. Maryland&lt;/em&gt;, 380 U.S. 51, that censorship laws must provide for "prompt judicial determination."&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The federal district court sided with Littleton. A Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did Littleton's adult business licensing ordinance violate the First Amendment protection of Free Speech because it did not guarantee a prompt judicial decision when a business appeals the denial of a license?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>02-1609_20040324-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1609/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1609/argument/02-1609_20040324-argument.mp3" length="14416019" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Based on its 1977 study concluding that concentrations of adult entertainment establishments are associated with higher crime rates in surrounding communities, the city of Los Angeles enacted Municipal Code section 12.70(C), which prohibited such enterprises within 1,000 feet of each other. The city later amended the ordinance to prohibit more than one adult entertainment business in the same building. Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc., two adult establishments that openly operate combined bookstores/video arcades, sued, alleging that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Finding that the ordinance was not a content-neutral regulation of speech, the District Court reasoned that the 1977 study did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the secondary effects the city asserted as content-neutral justifications for its prohibition. In affirming, the Court of Appeals found that, even if the ordinance were content neutral, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;May a city rely on a study it conducted to demonstrate whether an ordinance serves a substantial government interest?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>00-799_20011204-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_799/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_799/argument/00-799_20011204-argument.mp3" length="14542159" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Flynt v. Ohio - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>80-420_19810324-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_420/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_420/argument/80-420_19810324-argument.mp3" length="14469222" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1988 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>87-470_19881003-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_470/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_470/argument/87-470_19881003-argument.mp3" length="13857420" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Jenkins v. Georgia - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1974 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;An Albany, Georgia theater manager was convicted under a Georgia obscenity law when he showed the critically acclaimed film "Carnal Knowledge." The film explored social conceptions of sexuality and starred Jack Nicholson and Ann Margaret.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the manager's conviction violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>73-557_19740415-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_557/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_557/argument/73-557_19740415-lq-argument.mp3" length="13943078" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Massachusetts v. Oakes - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1989 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>87-1651_19890117-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1651/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1651/argument/87-1651_19890117-argument.mp3" length="13708761" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Mckinney v. Alabama - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 1975 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>74-532_19751215-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_532/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_532/argument/74-532_19751215-argument.mp3" length="12399591" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Memoirs v. Massachusetts - Oral Argument, Part 1</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1965 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A special provision of Massachusetts law allowed the Attorney General to initiate legal proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. The book, also known as Fanny Hill, was written by John Cleland in about 1750. Massachusetts courts, despite the defenses put forward by the book's publisher and copyright holder, judged the work to be obscene.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the actions of Massachusetts violate the First Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>368_19651207-argument-1</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_368/argument-1/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_368/argument-1/368_19651207-argument-1.mp3" length="5392883" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Memoirs v. Massachusetts - Oral Argument, Part 2</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1965 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A special provision of Massachusetts law allowed the Attorney General to initiate legal proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. The book, also known as Fanny Hill, was written by John Cleland in about 1750. Massachusetts courts, despite the defenses put forward by the book's publisher and copyright holder, judged the work to be obscene.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the actions of Massachusetts violate the First Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>368_19651208-argument-2</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_368/argument-2/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_368/argument-2/368_19651208-argument-2.mp3" length="11034914" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Miller v. California - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1972 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>70-73_19720118-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73/argument/70-73_19720118-lq-argument.mp3" length="14991891" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Miller v. California - Oral Reargument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 1972 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>70-73_19721107-lq-reargument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73/reargument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73/reargument/70-73_19721107-lq-reargument.mp3" length="13617127" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>New York v. Ferber - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 1982 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A New York child pornography law prohibited persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of sixteen by distributing material which depicts such performances.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>81-55_19820427-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_55/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_55/argument/81-55_19820427-lq-argument.mp3" length="14698100" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>New York v. P. J. Video, Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 1986 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>85-363_19860304-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_363/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_363/argument/85-363_19860304-argument.mp3" length="11478983" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Osborne v. Ohio - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 1989 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;After obtaining a warrant, Ohio police searched the home of Clyde Osborne and found explicit pictures of naked, sexually aroused male adolescents. Osborne was then prosecuted and found guilty of violating an Ohio law that made the possession of child pornography illegal.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did Ohio's ban on the possession of child pornography violate the First Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>88-5986_19891205-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5986/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5986/argument/88-5986_19891205-argument.mp3" length="14935661" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 1972 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;State officials in Georgia sought to enjoin the showing of allegedly obscene films at the Paris Adult Theatre. The Theatre clearly warned potential viewers of the sexual nature of the films and required that patrons be at least 21 years of age. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the films were "hard core" pornography unprotected by the Constitution.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the Georgia injunction against the films violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>71-1051_19721019-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_1051/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_1051/argument/71-1051_19721019-argument.mp3" length="14262764" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Pope v. Illinois - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 1987 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>85-1973_19870224-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1973/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1973/argument/85-1973_19870224-argument.mp3" length="14808227" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 1985 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;The city of Renton, Washington, enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating with in 1,000 feet of "any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school." Playtime Theatres, Inc., challenged the ordinance and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the Renton ordinance violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>84-1360_19851112-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1360/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1360/argument/84-1360_19851112-argument.mp3" length="14095124" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Schad v. Mount Ephraim - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1981 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>79-1640_19810225-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1640/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1640/argument/79-1640_19810225-argument.mp3" length="15524664" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Stanley v. Georgia - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 1969 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Law enforcement officers, under the authority of a warrant, searched Stanley's home pursuant to an investigation of his alleged bookmaking activities. During the search, the officers found three reels of eight-millimeter film. The officers viewed the films, concluded they were obscene, and seized them. Stanley was then tried and convicted under a Georgia law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the Georgia statute infringe upon the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>293_19690114-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_293/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_293/argument/293_19690114-lq-argument.mp3" length="15684099" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Ward v. Illinois - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 1977 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>76-415_19770427-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_415/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_415/argument/76-415_19770427-argument.mp3" length="14207376" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
