In Roth v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.

In Roth v. United States (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling concerning the First Amendment and its protection of free speech. The case involved Samuel Roth, a publisher and bookseller convicted under a federal statute for mailing obscene materials. Roth argued that the statute violated his First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion, stating that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” The Court established a new standard for defining obscenity, which included material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest” and that is “utterly without redeeming social importance.”

The ruling clarified that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material, thus allowing for regulation and prohibition of such content. This case set the precedent for subsequent obscenity cases and was a pivotal moment in First Amendment jurisprudence, balancing the protection of free speech with societal interests in regulating obscenity.

The Roth test for obscenity, although later refined by subsequent rulings such as Miller v. California (1973), remains a significant development in U.S. constitutional law.