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.
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.
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  tag. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
I am changing "Overruled by" Miller v. California to read "superseded."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)
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)
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)
Under "See Also", I added internal wikipedia links to "Obscenity" and "Censorship" Twitch330 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)