Final answer:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roth v. United States that obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment, a principle later refined by the Miller test established in Miller v. California.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the landmark case of Roth v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment. This decision, delivered in 1957, affirmed that obscenity, as defined by prevailing community standards, does not receive the same protections as other forms of expression. However, it was the later case of Miller v. California in 1973 that further refined the approach to define obscenity. According to the Miller test, for material to be considered legally obscene, it must satisfy three criteria: it must appeal to the prurient interest according to community standards, depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when taken as a whole.
It is crucial to understand that while the Miller test provides guidelines, the determination of obscenity often rests with juries, and defendants have the right to appeal if they believe these guidelines have been misapplied. Thus, while the Court set a framework for determining obscenity, it left a significant portion of the interpretative work to juries, which may result in variations based on local standards and sentiments.