Talk:Roth v. United States

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

this page needs a infobox, similar to the other SCOTUS case pages

==

Did seven justices really have weekly screenings of "obscene" material between Roth and Miller? This seems like vandalism to me so I have added a ^{[citation needed]} tag. 70.162.229.48 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Roth case ever actually get used by Nixon against the Warren Court? If not, I don't see why his name is being brought into all this.

How to make a infobox? Look at Bartnicki v. Vopper Bona Fides 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miller did not overrule Roth

I am changing "Overruled by" Miller v. California to read "superseded." Miller did not overrule Roth. As Chief Justice Burger wrote, "[We] reaffirm the Roth holding that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment." Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 35 (1973). To be more precise, Miller supersedes Roth by narrowing the scope of obscenity to sexual conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblaufeld (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This completely misunderstand how "overruled" and "superseded" are used in Wikipedia formatting. "Overruled" is used for when a new court decision/precedent changes an earlier court ruling and legal interpretation: it is purely judicial. "Superseded" is when the underlying constitutional or statutory law that is used to make a judicial ruling has changed, voiding the rationale for the earlier ruling: it is legislative in nature. And both imply that the old ruling is no longer valid, so changing one to the other does not make it better in this sense. When a new ruling changes the scope of or otherwise modifies an earlier ruling, the old one should be, if the new ruling is noted at all in the infobox, "overruled" (you can say "in part" if there's a particular portion overruled).

Changing it back. 2600:1012:A021:2117:9D63:C956:5357:78AA (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Twitch330

Under "Research Resources", the link to the first amendment center was was broken, so I replaced it with the Google Scholar entryTwitch330 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Research Resources" I added Cornell University's Legal Information Institute entry on Roth v. United States. Twitch330 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under "See Also", I added internal wikipedia links to "Obscenity" and "Censorship" Twitch330 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not relevant to the Miller discussion and should not have been in that section. 2600:1012:A021:2117:9D63:C956:5357:78AA (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]