Obscenity Law Evolution: The Fanny Hill Story
SECTION 1 – Passage Identification (40 points)
💡 Tip: Memorize title + date + key idea.
1️⃣ First Amendment (1791) → Protects freedom of speech but does not define its limits. Key cases: Roth v. U.S., Miller v. California.
2️⃣ Fourteenth Amendment (1868) → Applies constitutional rights to states, influencing censorship laws.
3️⃣ Regina v. Hicklin (1868) → Obscenity = any material that could “corrupt.”
4️⃣ Comstock Act (1873) → Bans obscene materials, contraceptives, and abortion-related information.
5️⃣ Roth v. U.S. (1957) → Obscenity is not protected unless it has “redeeming social value.”
6️⃣ Miller v. California (1973) → Community-based obscenity test: Does it appeal to prurient interest, is it offensive, and lacks value?
SECTION 2 – Matching: The Memoirs of Fanny Hill (40 points)
💡 Tip: Match names with key clues.
- Phoebe → Takes Fanny to London and deceives her.
- Mrs. Brown → Madam, exploits Fanny.
- Mr. H → Wealthy lover, but Fanny blackmails him.
- Mrs. Cole → Helps and empowers Fanny.
- Mr. Crofts → Buys Fanny’s virginity.
- Mr. Norbert → Has sadomasochistic fetishes.
- Louisa → Friend who teaches Fanny about sex.
- 60-year-old from Cadiz → Old libertine, boring.
Obscenity, First Amendment, and the Fanny Hill Case
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the press, yet the legal system has long debated whether obscenity falls under its protection. Over time, courts have ruled that obscenity is not protected, but the definition of obscenity has evolved significantly. Fanny Hill, one of the most censored books in history, serves as a critical case study in how legal standards for obscenity have changed. From Regina v. Hicklin (1868) to Roth v. U.S. (1957) and Miller v. California (1973), these rulings have shaped censorship laws and influenced the legal fate of Fanny Hill.
Legal Evolution of Obscenity Laws
The first major case defining obscenity was Regina v. Hicklin (1868), which established the Hicklin Test—stating that if any portion of a text could”deprave and corrup” vulnerable readers, it could be banned. This broad standard led to excessive censorship, including the prohibition of Fanny Hill.
In Roth v. U.S. (1957), the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment but redefined it. The Roth Test declared that material must be judged by its effect on the average person, not just the vulnerable, and it must be to be banned. This ruling was a step toward a more reasonable approach, but the definition was still vague.
Finally, Miller v. California (1973) introduced the Miller Test, which set three criteria for obscenity:
- Appeals to prurient interest (judged by community standards).
- Depicts sexual conduct in an offensive way.
- Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This test provided more flexibility and allowed courts to reconsider cases like Fanny Hill, which eventually became legally accepted as literature rather than obscenity.
The Case of Fanny Hill
Written in 1748 by John Cleland, Fanny Hill was banned for over 200 years due to its explicit content. Under the Hicklin Test, it was considered dangerous, but after Roth and Miller, courts reassessed its literary and historical significance. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that Fanny Hill had redeeming social value and was therefore not obscene.
This case highlights how legal definitions of obscenity have changed over time. If Fanny Hill had been judged solely under Hicklin, it would have remained banned. However, under Miller, it was recognized as a legitimate work of literature, proving that standards of obscenity are subjective and evolve with societal values.
Conclusion
The legal battle over Fanny Hill demonstrates that obscenity is not a fixed concept—it depends on the legal framework and cultural attitudes of the time. While the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, cases like Roth and Miller have refined its definition, preventing unnecessary censorship. Fanny Hill was once seen as immoral, but today it is acknowledged as an important literary work, showing that what is considered .