They said that material is obscene if "*** to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."

—was convicted of "lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books, and [of] writing, composing and publishing an obscene advertisement of them...."

—obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press, rejected the early leading standard of obscenity—judging obscenity by the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons—set forth in Regina

"The dispositive question is whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected free speech and the press. Although this is the first time. the question has been squarely presented to this Court* ** expressions found in numerous opinions indicate that this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press (quoting 10 …

Although all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance have the full protection of the Constitution, implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as being utterly without redeeming social importance.

—case the defendant was sentenced to a fine, imprisonment for sixty days, and probation for two years.

—a statute cannot "fail to give men in acting adequate notice of what is prohibited," and (p. 491, 77 S. Ct. p. 1312) that the language of the statute must convey "sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices***."

Eg, "obscene" materials that in Oregon are currently protected under the Oregon state constitution from blanket prohibition, though the Supreme Court declines to protect them under the fourteenth or the first amendment.

In Roth v. United States, supra, the Court said: "However, sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest."

—born or by the course of nature it proved that the woman was not pregnant at all. 4 Blackstone, Commentaries Comm. 1, 395 (4th ed. 1771). Conservative and Reform Jews apparently regard abortion far more liberally than do Orthodox Jews. Hall, Commentary, in Abortion and the Law 224, 232 (Smith ed. 1967). The mere assertion, of course, that the action of the State …