Roth v. United States
E130035
Roth v. United States is a landmark 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal standard for obscenity under the First Amendment.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Roth v. United States canonical | 12 |
| Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) | 1 |
| Samuel Roth v. United States | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1091201 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Roth v. United States Context triple: [William J. Brennan Jr., notableWork, Roth v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
-
C.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Roth v. United States Target entity description: Roth v. United States is a landmark 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal standard for obscenity under the First Amendment.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
-
C.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark decision ⓘ |
| appliedTo | federal obscenity statute ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
First Amendment law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ |
| arguedDate |
1957-04-22
ⓘ
1957-04-23 ⓘ |
| citation | 354 U.S. 476 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | Felix Frankfurter ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1957-06-24 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority decision ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Hugo L. Black
ⓘ
John M. Harlan II ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 582 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Samuel Roth v. United States
ⓘ
linked to:
Roth v. United States
|
| holding |
Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment
ⓘ
The test for obscenity is whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest ⓘ |
| impact |
limited First Amendment protection for sexually explicit materials deemed obscene
ⓘ
redefined the legal standard for obscenity in the United States ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Charles E. Whittaker
ⓘ
Earl Warren ⓘ Felix Frankfurter ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ John M. Harlan II ⓘ Tom C. Clark ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
First Amendment
ⓘ
freedom of speech ⓘ freedom of the press ⓘ obscenity ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| overruledPrecedent |
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (to the extent inconsistent with new standard)
ⓘ
linked to:
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
|
| petitioner | Samuel Roth ⓘ |
| rearguedDate |
1957-10-21
ⓘ
1957-10-22 ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
contemporary community standards
ⓘ
obscene material ⓘ prurient interest ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| standardEstablished | Roth test for obscenity ⓘ |
| subsequentCase |
Jacobellis v. Ohio
ⓘ
Memoirs v. Massachusetts ⓘ Miller v. California ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 20th century ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Roth v. United States Description of subject: Roth v. United States is a landmark 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal standard for obscenity under the First Amendment.
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.