Stanley v. Georgia
394 U.S. 557 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a state from making the mere private possession of obscene material a crime.
Facts:
- Federal and state agents obtained a search warrant authorizing them to search the home of Robert Eli Stanley for evidence of illegal bookmaking activities.
- During the search, the agents found little to no evidence of bookmaking.
- In a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, an agent discovered three reels of eight-millimeter film.
- Using a projector and screen also found in Stanley's home, the agents proceeded to watch the films.
- After viewing the films, a state officer concluded they were obscene, seized them, and placed Stanley under arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Eli Stanley was indicted in a Georgia trial court for knowingly possessing obscene matter in violation of state law.
- At trial, Stanley moved to suppress the films as evidence on the grounds of an unlawful seizure, but the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury found Stanley guilty of the offense.
- Stanley appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed his conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute criminalizing the mere private possession of obscene material violate the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. A statute imposing criminal sanctions upon the mere private possession of obscene matter violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. While prior cases like Roth v. United States established that obscenity is not protected speech, those cases dealt with the public or commercial distribution of obscene materials, not private possession. The Constitution protects an individual's right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and this right is heightened by the fundamental right to privacy in one's own home. The state's asserted justifications—protecting a person's mind from corruption or preventing potential antisocial conduct—are insufficient to override these fundamental liberties, as they amount to an unconstitutional attempt by the government to control a person's private thoughts. If the First Amendment means anything, it means a state cannot tell a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.
Concurring - Justice Black
Yes. The First Amendment, by its plain terms, forbids any law that abridges the freedom of speech or of the press, which includes the right to possess and view any film or reading material without government censorship. Therefore, the Georgia statute is unconstitutional.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes, but the conviction should be reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds, not First Amendment grounds. The search warrant authorized a search for bookmaking paraphernalia, not obscene films. The seizure of the films, whose contents were not in plain view and could only be ascertained after a 50-minute viewing, exceeded the scope of the warrant and constituted an unconstitutional general search. Because the films were seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, they were inadmissible evidence under Mapp v. Ohio, and the conviction cannot stand.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established a constitutional right to possess obscene material in the privacy of one's home, creating a significant limitation on the doctrine from Roth v. United States that obscenity is unprotected speech. It solidifies the home as a protected zone of privacy for First Amendment activities, distinguishing sharply between public distribution of obscenity (which can be regulated) and private possession (which cannot). This ruling creates a legal paradox where it is illegal to produce, sell, or transport obscene material, but legal for an individual to possess it in their home, highlighting the tension between state police power and individual liberty.
