Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 69, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 2641, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 486, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1309, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957); see Miller, 413 U.S. at 23, 93 S.Ct. at 2614 ("This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment.”). 12 . United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 128, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 2669, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 376, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1408, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971); United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.2006), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1326, 167 L.Ed.2d 86 (2007) (No. 06-980); see also T.K.’s Video, Inc. v. State, 891 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). 13 . United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351,
holding that new york law has no common law right of privacy embracmg such claims as false light as any such privacy right is purely statutory holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding that constitutionallyprotected right to possess obscene material in the privacy of the home does not require that the court fashion or recognize a constitutional right for commercial purveyors of obscene material to distribute or sell it holding that while an individual has a right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home there is no corresponding privacy right to purchase such material holding that an individual can reasonably expect that his right to privacy will not be violated in his home through the use of any electronic surveillance