PLS 460 NEW YORK v FERBER

PLS 460 NEW YORK v FERBER - NEW YORK v FERBER No. 81-55...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
NEW YORK v FERBER No. 81-55 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 458 U.S. 747; 102 S. Ct. 3348; 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 12; 50 U.S.L.W. 5077; 8 Media L. Rep. 1809 April 27, 1982, Argued July 2, 1982, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. DISPOSITION: 52 N. Y. 2d 674, 422 N. E. 2d 523 , reversed and remanded. Case in Brief Time-saving, comprehensive research tool. Includes expanded summary, extensive research and analysis, and links to LexisNexis® content and available court documents. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Respondent appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals of New York holding that N.Y. Penal Law § 263.15 violated the First Amendment because it prohibited the promotion of materials that were entitled to constitutional protection from government interference. Section 263.15 was held to be under-inclusive and overbroad. OVERVIEW: Respondent, the proprietor of a bookstore, sold two films to an undercover police officer depicting young boys masturbating. He was found guilty on two counts of violating N.Y. Penal Law § 263.15 , a law that did not require proof that the films were obscene. The appellate court held that § 263.15 violated the First Amendment . On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. It held that § 263.15 did not fail under First Amendment scrutiny. There was nothing constitutionally "under inclusive" about a statute that singled out this category of material for proscription. The First Amendment , the Court held, did not bar the state from prohibiting the distribution of unprotected material produced outside the state. Respondent argued that § 263.15 was "overbroad," as an impermissible application because it
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
included medical books and educational sources. The Court held such applications were no more than a tiny fraction of the materials that were within the statute's reach, and whatever overbreadth might have existed was curable through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations. OUTCOME:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

PLS 460 NEW YORK v FERBER - NEW YORK v FERBER No. 81-55...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online