The History of Pornography - Notes

Porn Studies > Meese Report Table of Contents

  1. King v. Sedley, 1 Keble 620 (K.B.), 83 Eng. Rep. 1146 (1663).
  2. Queen v. Read, Fortescue's Reports 98, 92 Eng. Rep. 777 (1708).
  3. Dominus Rex v. Curll, 2 Str. 789, 9:1 Eng. Rep. 849 (1727). Because the religious aspects of this book were antiCatholic, it seems safe to conclude that protection of religion was no part of the governmental desire to indict or to convict.
  4. The King v. John Wilkes, 2 Wils. K.B. 151, 95 Eng. Rep. 737 (1764), 4 Burr. 2527, 98 Eng. Rep. 327 (1770).
  5. 2 Serg. & Rawle 91 (1815).
  6. 17 Mass. 336 (1821).
  7. Commonwealth v. Friede, 271 Mass. 318, 171 N.E. 472 (1930).
  8. Hannegan v. Esquire, ;127 U.S. 146 (1946)
  9. 354 (1.S. 476 (1957)
  10. 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
  11. 383 U.S. 413 (1966).
  12. E.g., Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967).
  13. 413 U.S. 49 (1973).
  14. 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

Porn Studies > Meese Report Table of Contents

Copyright 2005 pornstudies.net