Дело Стэнли против штата Джорджия: право на неприкосновенность частной жизни и порнография.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U. S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials. The home of Robert Eli Stanley, a suspected bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia. As they found none, they instead seized three reels of pornographic material from a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, and later charged Stanley with the possession of obscene materials, a crime under Georgia law. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia. In the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion that overturned the earlier decision and invalidated all state laws that forbade the private possession of materials judged obscene on the grounds of the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Justices Potter Stewart, William J. Brennan, and Byron White contributed a joint concurring opinion with a separate opinion having to do with the Fourth Amendment search and seizure provision. Justice Hugo Black also concurred expressing the view that all obscenity laws were unconstitutional. The case also established an implied right to pornography, but not an absolute right. In Osborne v. Ohio (1990), the Supreme Court upheld a law which criminalized the possession of child pornography.

Prior to the Stanley case, the prevailing precedent was that of Roth v. United States, where obscene material was determined to be unprotected by the First Amendment right to speech. In Roth, the defendant sent lewd advertisements by mail and sold American Aphrodite, a magazine containing erotica and pornography content. A California court convicted him under state law, and when Roth appealed the decision, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. In the majority decision, written by Justice Brennan, a new test was created for determining what can be considered obscene (the Hicklin test was used since a ruling in 1857, which the Court abandoned in Roth). By 1960, the sexual revolution was in full swing in the United States, and newly defined social norms clashed with the established statutory and common law of the country. Since the ruling in Roth in 1957, many cases in state and federal courts were determined using the case as primary justification.

Robert Eli Stanley a resident from Atlanta, Georgia was a suspected bookmaker. A warrant was granted to search his home. The searching officials did not find evidence of bookmaking, but instead discovered three reels of eight millimeter film. They watched the films using a projector that they found in Stanley's home, and upon discovering that the films were pornographic, they seized the films as evidence and arrested Robert Stanley for possession of obscene matter, which was illegal by Georgia statute. Stanley was tried and convicted of possession of obscene material. Stanley appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, in which the court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Justice Potter Stewart wrote a concurring opinion which Justice William J. Brennan and Justice Byron White joined. "There was also another issue with the Constitutionality of the case, which was not addressed in the majority decision. The films were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the issuance of general warrants to search a person's home. A warrant can only be issued by a judge when there is probable cause. The particular items to be found must be enumerated on the warrant. The search warrant issued was for the seizure of materials in Stanley's home relating to bookmaking. There was no mention of obscene films on the warrant, and so the seizure of the films as evidence was unconstitutional. General searches and seizures were made unconstitutional because of the prevailing policy during colonial rule of colonial courts issuing writs of assistance directing law enforcement officers to search all of a person's belongings to find anything that is incriminating. The films and their content were not in "plain view". The record showed that the officers had to play the films on a projector to determine that they violated the Georgia obscenity statute. So the films are not admissible as evidence under the plain view doctrine, which requires that the character of the object is "immediately apparent". A search warrant cannot be used as a "ticket" to enter private property. Once inside, an officer cannot assume the privileges of a general warrant. For these reasons, the films are inadmissible as evidence. Stanley made a motion to exercise this Fourth Amendment right during his trial, and the motion was unconstitutionally denied. The Georgia Supreme Court also overlooked this Constitutional violation. The conviction must be reversed."

Stanley v. Georgia limited the power of the government to police the private possession of obscenity. The majority opinion defended the free and unimpeded acquisition of facts and knowledge, regardless of their apparent social value. The Court reasoned that unless the pornography is presented in a way that creates a negative externality on others, especially minors, no individual can be stopped from owning and viewing pornography in private.

United States v. Thirty seven Photographs (1971) – Upheld that importation of pornography is illegal
United States v. Reidel (1971) – Upheld a postal regulation barring the distribution of pornography through the mail
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) – Privacy required in Stanley decision is not sufficient for a commercial movie theater
Osborne v. Ohio (1990) – The Stanley case distinguished, upheld law criminalizing mere possession of child pornography
Reno v. ACLU (1997) – Upheld legality of distribution of pornography on the Internet
Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002) – Protected use of "community standards" to identify material unsuitable for minors