Final answer:
The Supreme Court's decisions on free press, fair trial, and obscenity have evolved over time, with landmark cases establishing fundamental protections and the Miller test for obscenity. The current position of the Court balances societal values and individual rights, with the Internet presenting new challenges for regulating free expression.
Step-by-step explanation:
The historical development of Supreme Court decisions regarding free press/fair trial and obscenity has been continuing to evolve. Regarding free press, key cases such as Near v. Minnesota and the Pentagon Papers case (New York Times Co. v. United States) established the protection against prior restraint, allowing the press to publish without government censorship. In terms of fair trial concerns, the Supreme Court has had to balance the First Amendment against the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, leading to decisions that shape the conduct of pretrial publicity and media coverage of court cases.
When it comes to obscenity, the Court has grappled with defining what constitutes obscenity over the years. Early twentieth-century literature faced bans but is now rarely subjected to such treatment. The significant case of Miller v. California established the three-part Miller test which involves assessing whether the average person finds the work as a whole to appeal to prurient interest, whether it depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The current posture of the Court in these areas remains one of balancing societal values and individual rights. Free press and fair trial are protected vigorously, while decisions on obscenity have required the Court to draw lines based on evolving community standards and the nature of the content itself. Controversies especially surface with the Internet’s impact on obscenity and the spread of information, challenging the Court to develop criteria suited for the digital age.
The Internet has introduced complexities in regulating free expression. As the Internet enables both access to a wealth of information and the potential harm through exposure to obscene content, the Supreme Court and lower courts continue to work on a case-by-case basis to delineate acceptable speech online, especially with regard to children's access to explicit material.