The Comstock Act was barrowed from a British definition called the Hicklin rule. The Hicklin rule came from an 1868 British case Regina v. Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. 360. This was the law standard used until 1957 when the Supreme Court decided the standard no longer fit. Justice Felix Frankfurter acknowledged that under the rule, adults were not allowed to view what was not appropriate for children. The new standard that was used came from a few cases heard by the Supreme Court. One of these cases was Roth v. United States (1957). This case was actually the combination of Roth v. the United States and Alberts v. California. Roth was business owner in New York. His business publicized and sold books, photographs and magazines and he used circulars and advertising matter to solicit sales. Roth was convicted by a jury in the District Court for the Southern District of New York upon 4 counts of a 26-count indictment charging him with mailing obscene circulars and advertising, and an obscene book, in violation of the federal obscenity statute. The court of appeals agreed with the lower courts decision. Alberts ran a similar mail order business out of Los Angeles. Alberts was charged with keeping for sale obscene and indecent books, and with writing, composing and publishing an obscene advertisement of them. Roth was in violation of a California penal code. The conviction of Roth was with held in the United States Court of Appeals2. The two issues were argued in the Supreme Court on April 22, 1957. In Roth's case the issue was whether not it was constitutional to punish him for the mailing of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character,." In Alberts case the issue was weather or not it was constitutionally valid to punish someone for keeping, selling, or advertising material that is "obscene of indecent." .
In both cases, the court held the convictions of the two men.