To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Rosen v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosen v. 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".

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    724
    48 775 887
    1 829
  • Wallace v. Rosen Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
  • Hot Food | POEM | The Hypnotiser | Kids' Poems and Stories With Michael Rosen
  • Rosen schneiden Praxisvideo

Transcription

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.[1]

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.[2]

Justices White and Shiras dissented.

See also

References

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

External links

This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 03:01
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.