Roth (1957):  This controversial case attempted to develop a new
definition of obscenity different from the Hicklen test.  D (Roth)
conducted a business in New York in the publication and sale of
books, photos and mags.  He was convicted by a jury of mailing
obscene circulars and ads, and an obscene book, in violation of a
federal obscenity statute.  This statute held that the material must
“tend to stir sexual impulses and lead to sexually impure thoughts.”
Was this federal statute a violation of P’s First Am. rights?
Another D (Alberts), in CA, sold certain materials that were found
obscene because they violated a state obscenity statute.  This
statute defined obscenity as materials that “have a tendency to
deprave or corrupt its readers by exciting lascivious thoughts or
arousing lustful desire.”  Does this state statute violate P’s First
Am. rights?