Obscenity.—Although public discussion of political affairs is at the core of the First Amendment, the guarantees of speech and press, it should have been noticed from the previous subsections, are broader. We do not accede to appellees suggestion that the constitutional protection for a free press applies only to the exposition of ideas. The line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive for the protection of that basic right.1079 The right to impart and to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth . . . is fundamental to our free society.1080 Indeed, it is primarily with regard to the entertaining function of expression that the law of obscenity is concerned, inasmuch as the Court has rejected any concept of ideological obscenity.1081 However, this function is not the reason why obscenity is outside the protection of the First Amendment, although the Court has never really been clear about what that reason is.
Adjudication over the constitutional law of obscenity began in Roth v. United States,1082 in which the Court in an opinion by Justice Brennan settled in the negative the dispositive question whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected speech and press.1083 The Court then undertook a brief historical survey to demonstrate that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. All or practically all of the States that ratified the First Amendment had laws making blasphemy or profanity or both crimes, and provided for prosecutions of libels as well. It was this history that had caused the Court in Beauharnais to conclude that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech, and this history was deemed to demonstrate that obscenity, too, was outside the protection intended for speech and press.1084 The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people .... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance—unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion—have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.1085 It was objected that obscenity legislation punishes because of incitation to impure thoughts and without proof that obscene materials create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct. But since obscenity was not protected at all, such tests as clear and present danger were irrelevant.1086
1079 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948). Illustrative of the general observation is the fact that [m]usic, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989).
1081 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S 495 (1952); Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 346 U.S. 587 (1954); Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959). The last case involved the banning of the movie Lady Chatterleys Lover on the ground that it dealt too sympathetically with adultery. It is contended that the States action was justified because the motion picture attractively portrays a relationship which is contrary to the moral standards, the religious precepts, and the legal code of its citizenry. This argument misconceives what it is that the Constitution protects. Its guarantee is not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority. It protects advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes be proper no less than advocacy of socialism or the single tax. And in the realm of ideas it protects expression which is eloquent no less than that which is unconvincing. Id. at 688-89.
1082 354 U.S. 476 (1957). Heard at the same time and decided in the same opinion was Alberts v. California, involving, of course, a state obscenity law. The Courts first opinion in the obscenity field was Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957), considered infra. Earlier the Court had divided four-to-four and thus affirmed a state court judgment that Edmund Wilsons Memoirs of Hecate County was obscene. Doubleday & Co. v. New York, 335 U.S. 848 (1948).
1083 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 481 (1957). Justice Brennan later changed his mind on this score, arguing that, because the Court had failed to develop a workable standard for distinguishing the obscene from the non-obscene, regulation should be confined to the protection of children and non-consenting adults. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 73 (1973).
1084 354 U.S. at 482-83. The reference is to Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952).
However, Justice Brennan continued, sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press .... It is therefore vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.1087 The standard that the Court thereupon adopted for the designation of material as unprotected obscenity was whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.1088 The Court defined material appealing to prurient interest as material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts, and defined prurient interest as a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.1089
1087 354 U.S. at 487, 488.
1088 354 U.S. at 489.
1089 354 U.S. at 487 n.20. A statute defining prurient as that which incites lasciviousness or lust covers more than obscenity, the Court later indicated in Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 498 (1984); obscenity consists in appeal to a shameful or morbid interest in sex, not in appeal to normal, healthy sexual desires. Brockett involved a facial challenge to the statute, so the Court did not have to explain the difference between normal, healthy sexual desires and shameful or morbid sexual desires.
In the years after Roth, the Court struggled with many obscenity cases with varying degrees of success. The cases can be grouped topically, but, with the exception of those cases dealing with protection of children,1090 unwilling adult recipients,1091 and procedure,1092 these cases are best explicated chronologically.
1090 In Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957), the Court unanimously reversed a conviction under a statute that punished general distribution of materials unsuitable for children. Protesting that the statute reduce[d] the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children, the Court pronounced the statute void. Narrowly drawn proscriptions for distribution or exhibition to children of materials which would not be obscene for adults are permissible, Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), although the Court insists on a high degree of specificity. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676 (1968); Rabeck v. New York, 391 U.S. 462 (1968). Protection of children in this context is concurred in even by those Justices who would proscribe obscenity regulation for adults. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 73, 113 (1973) (Justice Brennan dissenting). But children do have First Amendment protection and government may not bar dissemination of everything to them. Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212-14 (1975) (in context of nudity on movie screen). See also FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 749-50 (1978); Pinkus v. United States, 436 U.S. 293, 296-98 (1978).
1091 Protection of unwilling adults was the emphasis in Rowan v. Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728 (1970), which upheld a scheme by which recipients of objectionable mail could put their names on a list and require the mailer to send no more such material. But, absent intrusions into the home, FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978), or a degree of captivity that makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure, government may not censor content, in the context of materials not meeting constitutional standards for denomination as pornography, to protect the sensibilities of some. It is up to offended individuals to turn away. Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 202-12 (1975). But see Pinkus v. United States, 436 U.S. 293, 298-301 (1978) (jury in passing on what community standards are must include sensitive persons within the community).
1092 The First Amendment requires that procedures for suppressing distribution of obscene materials provide for expedited consideration, for placing the burden of proof on government, and for hastening judicial review. Additionally, Fourth Amendment search and seizure law has been suffused with First Amendment principles, so that the law governing searches for and seizures of allegedly obscene materials is more stringent than in most other areas. Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961); A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964); Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (1973); Lo-Ji Sales v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979); and see Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980). Scienter—that is, knowledge of the nature of the materials—is a prerequisite to conviction, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), but the prosecution need only prove the defendant knew the contents of the material, not that he knew they were legally obscene. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 119-24 (1974). See also Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U.S. 308 (1980) (public nuisance injunction of showing future films on basis of past exhibition of obscene films constitutes prior restraint); McKinney v. Alabama, 424 U.S. 669 (1976) (criminal defendants may not be bound by a finding of obscenity of materials in prior civil proceeding to which they were not parties). None of these strictures applies, however, to forfeitures imposed as part of a criminal penalty. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993) (upholding RICO forfeiture of the entire adult entertainment book and film business of an individual convicted of obscenity and racketeering offenses). Justice Kennedy, dissenting in Alexander, objected to the forfeiture of expressive material that had not been adjudged to be obscene. Id. at 578.
Manual Enterprises v. Day1093 upset a Post Office ban upon the mailing of certain magazines addressed to homosexual audiences, but resulted in no majority opinion of the Court. Nor did a majority opinion emerge in Jacobellis v. Ohio, which reversed a conviction for exhibiting a motion picture.1094 Chief Justice Warrens concurrence in Roth1095 was adopted by a majority in Ginzburg v. United States,1096 in which Justice Brennan for the Court held that in close cases borderline materials could be determined to be obscene if the seller pandered them in a way that indicated he was catering to prurient interests. The same five-Justice majority, with Justice Harlan concurring, the same day affirmed a state conviction of a distributor of books addressed to a sado-masochistic audience, applying the pandering test and concluding that material could be held legally obscene if it appealed to the prurient interests of the deviate group to which it was directed.1097 Unanimity was shattered, however, when on the same day the Court held that Fanny Hill, a novel at that point 277 years old, was not legally obscene.1098 The prevailing opinion again restated the Roth tests that, to be considered obscene, material must (1) have a dominant theme in the work considered as a whole that appeals to prurient interest, (2) be patently offensive because it goes beyond contemporary community standards, and (3) be utterly without redeeming social value.1099
1093 370 U.S. 478 (1962).
1094 378 U.S. 184 (1964). Without opinion, citing Jacobellis, the Court reversed a judgment that Henry Millers Tropic of Cancer was obscene. Grove Press v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 577 (1964). Jacobellis is best known for Justice Stewarts concurrence, contending that criminal prohibitions should be limited to hard-core pornography. The category may be indefinable, he added, but I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. Id. at 197. The difficulty with this visceral test is that other members of the Court did not always see it the same way; two years later, for example, Justice Stewart was on opposite sides in two obscenity decisions decided on the same day. A Book Named John Clelands Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 421 (1966) (concurring on basis that book was not obscene); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 518 (1966) (dissenting from finding that material was obscene).
1097 Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966). See id. at 507-10 for discussion of the legal issue raised by the limited appeal of the material. The Court relied on Mishkin in Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767, 772 (1977).
1098 A Book Named "John Clelands Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966).
After the divisions engendered by the disparate opinions in the three 1966 cases, the Court over the next several years submerged its differences by per curiam dispositions of nearly three dozen cases, in all but one of which it reversed convictions or civil determinations of obscenity. The initial case was Redrup v. New York,1100 in which, after noting that the cases involved did not present special questions requiring other treatment, such as concern for juveniles, protection of unwilling adult recipients, or proscription of pandering,1101 the Court succinctly summarized the varying positions of the seven Justices in the majority and said: [w]hichever of the constitutional views is brought to bear upon the cases before us, it is clear that the judgments cannot stand ....1102 And so things went for several years.1103
Changing membership on the Court raised increasing speculation about the continuing vitality of Roth; it seemed unlikely the Court would long continue its Redrup approach.1104 The change when it occurred strengthened the powers of government, federal, state, and local, to outlaw or restrictively regulate the sale and dissemination of materials found objectionable, and developed new standards for determining which objectionable materials are legally obscene.
1100 386 U.S. 767 (1967).
1101 386 U.S. at 771.
1102 386 U.S. at 770-71. The majority was thus composed of Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Fortas.
1104 See United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971) (federal prohibition of dissemination of obscene materials through the mails is constitutional); United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971) (customs seizures of obscene materials from baggage of travelers are constitutional). In Grove Press v. Maryland State Bd. of Censors, 401 U.S. 480 (1971), a state court determination that the motion picture I Am Curious (Yellow) was obscene was affirmed by an equally divided Court, Justice Douglas not participating. And Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 560-64, 568 (1969), had insisted that Roth remained the governing standard.
At the end of the October 1971 Term, the Court requested argument on the question whether the display of sexually oriented films or of sexually oriented pictorial magazines, when surrounded by notice to the public of their nature and by reasonable protection against exposure to juveniles, was constitutionally protected.1105 By a five-to-four vote the following Term, the Court in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton adhered to the principle established in Roth that obscene material is not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments even if access is limited to consenting adults.1106 Chief Justice Burger for the Court observed that the States have wider interests than protecting juveniles and unwilling adults from exposure to pornography; legitimate state interests, effectuated through the exercise of the police power, exist in protecting and improving the quality of life and the total community environment, in improving the tone of commerce in the cities, and in protecting public safety. It matters not that the States may be acting on the basis of unverifiable assumptions in arriving at the decision to suppress the trade in pornography; the Constitution does not require in the context of the trade in ideas that governmental courses of action be subject to empirical verification any more than it does in other fields. Nor does the Constitution embody any concept of laissez faire, or of privacy, or of Millsean free will, that curbs governmental efforts to suppress pornography.1107
In Miller v. California,1108 the Court then undertook to enunciate standards by which unprotected pornographic materials were to be identified. Because of the inherent dangers in undertaking to regulate any form of expression, laws to regulate pornography must be carefully limited; their scope is to be confined to materials that depict or describe patently offensive hard core sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed.1109 The law must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.1110 The standard that a work must be utterly without redeeming social value before it may be suppressed was disavowed and discarded. In determining whether material appeals to a prurient interest or is patently offensive, the trier of fact, whether a judge or a jury, is not bound by a hypothetical national standard but may apply the local community standard where the trier of fact sits.1111 Prurient interest and patent offensiveness, the Court indicated, are essentially questions of fact.1112 By contrast, the third or value prong of the Miller test is not subject to a community standards test; instead, the appropriate standard is whether a reasonable person would find [literary, artistic, political, or scientific] value in the material, taken as a whole.1113
1106 413 U.S. 49 (1973).
1107 413 U.S. at 57, 60-62, 63-64, 65-68. Delivering the principal dissent, Justice Brennan argued that the Courts Roth approach allowing the suppression of pornography was a failure, that the Court had not and could not formulate standards by which protected materials could be distinguished from unprotected materials, and that the First Amendment had been denigrated through the exposure of numerous persons to punishment for the dissemination of materials that fell close to one side of the line rather than the other, but more basically by deterrence of protected expression caused by the uncertainty. Id. at 73. I would hold, therefore, that at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly obscene contents. Id. at 113. Justices Stewart and Marshall joined this opinion; Justice Douglas dissented separately, adhering to the view that the First Amendment absolutely protected all expression. Id. at 70.
1108 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
1109 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 27 (1973). The Court stands ready to read into federal statutes the standards it has formulated. United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 130 n.7 (1973) (Court is prepared to construe statutes proscribing materials that are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent, and immoral as limited to the types of hard core pornography reachable under the Miller standards). For other cases applying Miller standards to federal statutes, see Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 110-16 (1974) (use of the mails); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973) (transportation of pornography in interstate commerce). The Courts insistence on specificity in state statutes, either as written by the legislature or as authoritatively construed by the state court, appears to have been significantly weakened, in fact if not in enunciation, in Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767 (1977).
1110 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 24.
1111 It is the unprotected nature of obscenity that allows this inquiry; offensiveness to local community standards is, of course, a principle completely at odds with mainstream First Amendment jurisprudence. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
1112 413 U.S. at 30-34. A juror is entitled to draw on his knowledge of the views of the average person in the community or vicinage from which he comes for making the required determination, just as he is entitled to draw on his knowledge of the propensities of a reasonable person in other areas of the law. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 104 (1974). The holding does not compel any particular circumscribed area to be used as a community. In federal cases, it will probably be the judicial district from which the jurors are drawn, id. at 105-106. Indeed, the jurors may be instructed to apply community standards without any definition being given of the community. Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 157 (1974). In a federal prosecution for use of the mails to transmit pornography, the fact that the legislature of the State within which the transaction takes place has abolished pornography regulation except for dealings with children does not preclude permitting the jurors in the federal case to make their own definitions of what is offensive to contemporary community standards; they may be told of the legislatures decision but they are not bound by it. Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977).
The Court in Miller reiterated that it was not permitting an unlimited degree of suppression of materials. Only hard core materials were to be deemed without the protection of the First Amendment, and the Courts idea of the content of hard core pornography was revealed in its examples: (a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated. (b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.1114 Subsequently, the Court held that a publication was not obscene if it provoked only normal, healthy sexual desires. To be obscene it must appeal to a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.1115 The Court has also indicated that obscenity is not be limited to pictures; books containing only descriptive language may be suppressed.1116
First Amendment values, the Court stressed in Miller, are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary.1117 But the Court had conferred on juries as triers of fact the determination, based upon their understanding of community standards, whether material was patently offensive. Did not this virtually immunize these questions from appellate review? In Jenkins v. Georgia,1118 the Court, while adhering to the Miller standards, stated that juries [do not] have unbridled discretion in determining what is patently offensive. Miller was intended to make clear that only hard-core materials could be suppressed and this concept and the Courts descriptive itemization of some types of hardcore materials were intended to fix substantive constitutional limitations, deriving from the First Amendment, on the type of material subject to such a determination. The Courts own viewing of the motion picture in question convinced it that [n]othing in the movie falls within either of the two examples given in Miller of material which may constitutionally be found to meet the patently offensive element of those standards, nor is there anything sufficiently similar to such material to justify similar treatment.1119 But in a companion case, the Court found that a jury determination of obscenity was supported by the evidence and consistent with the standards.1120
1114 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 25 (1973). Quoting Millers language in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 114 (1974), the Court reiterated that it was only hard-core material that was unprotected. While the particular descriptions there contained were not intended to be exhaustive, they clearly indicate that there is a limit beyond which neither legislative draftsmen nor juries may go in concluding that particular material is patently offensive within the meaning of the obscenity test set forth in the Miller cases. Referring to this language in Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767 (1977), the Court upheld a state courts power to construe its statute to reach sadomasochistic materials not within the confines of the Miller language.
1116 Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973).
1117 413 U.S. at 25.
1118 418 U.S. 153 (1974).
1119 418 U.S. at 161. The film at issue was Carnal Knowledge.
1120 Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974). In Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 305-06 (1977), the Court explained that jury determinations in accordance with their own understanding of the tolerance of the average person in their community are not unreviewable. Judicial review would pass on (1) whether the jury was properly instructed to consider the entire community and not simply the members own subjective reaction or the reactions of a sensitive or of a callous minority, (2) whether the conduct depicted fell within the examples specified in Miller, (3) whether the work lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and (4) whether the evidence was sufficient. The Court indicated that the value test of Miller was particularly amenable to judicial review. The value test is not to be measured by community standards, the Court later held in Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987), but instead by a reasonable person standard. An erroneous instruction on this score, however, may be harmless error. Id. at 503.
The decisions from the Paris Adult Theatre and Miller era were rendered by narrow majorities,1121 but nonetheless have guided the Court since. There is no indication that the dissenting viewpoints in those cases will gain ascendancy in the foreseeable future;1122 if anything, government authority to define and regulate obscenity may be strengthened. Also, the Courts willingness to allow substantial regulation of non-obscene but sexually explicit or indecent expression reduces the importance (outside the criminal area) of whether material is classified as obscene.
Even as to materials falling within the constitutional definition of obscene, the Court has recognized a limited private, protected interest in possession within the home,1123 unless those materials constitute child pornography. Stanley v. Georgia was an appeal from a state conviction for possession of obscene films discovered in appellants home by police officers armed with a search warrant for other items which were not found. Unanimously,1124 the Court reversed, holding that the mere private possession of obscene materials in the home cannot be made a criminal offense. The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, the Court said, regardless of their social value, and that right takes on an added dimension in the context of a prosecution for possession of something in ones own home. For also fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into ones privacy.1125 Despite the unqualified assertion in Roth that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment, the Court observed, it and the cases following were concerned with the governmental interest in regulating commercial distribution of obscene materials. Roth and the cases following that decision are not impaired by todays decision, the Court insisted,1126 but in its rejection of each of the state contentions made in support of the conviction the Court appeared to be rejecting much of the basis of Roth. First, there is no governmental interest in protecting an individuals mind from the effect of obscenity. Second, the absence of ideological content in the films was irrelevant, since the Court will not draw a line between transmission of ideas and entertainment. Third, there is no empirical evidence to support a contention that exposure to obscene materials may incite a person to antisocial conduct; even if there were such evidence, enforcement of laws proscribing the offensive conduct is the answer. Fourth, punishment of mere possession is not necessary to punishment of distribution. Fifth, there was little danger that private possession would give rise to the objections underlying a proscription upon public dissemination, exposure to children and unwilling adults.1127
1121 For other five-to-four decisions of the era, see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977); Splawn v. California, 431 U.S. 595 (1977); and Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767 (1977).
1122 None of the dissenters in Miller and Paris Adult Theatre (Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall) remains on the Court. Justice Stevens agrees with Justice Brennan that government may not constitutionally criminalize mere possession or sale of obscene literature, absent some connection to minors or obtrusive display to unconsenting adults, Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 513 (Stevens, J., dissenting), but it is doubtful whether any other members of the current Court share this view. Justice Whites dissenting opinion in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 587 (1991), joined by Justice Blackmun and Justice Marshall, seems to reflect similar views with respect to regulation of non-obscene nude dancing, but does not address regulation of obscenity. Both Justice White and Justice Blackmun voted with the majority in Miller and Paris Adult Theatre.
1123 Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
1124 Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court and was joined by Justices Douglas, Harlan, and Fortas, and Chief Justice Warren. Justice Black concurred. 394 U.S. at 568. Justice Stewart concurred and was joined by Justices Brennan and White on a search and seizure point. Justice Stewart, however, had urged the First Amendment ground in an earlier case. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 686 (1961) (concurring opinion).
1125 394 U.S. at 564.
1126 394 U.S. at 560-64, 568.
1127 394 U.S. at 565-68.
Stanleys broad rationale has been given a restrictive reading, and the holding has been confined to its facts. Any possible implication that Stanley was applicable outside the home and recognized a right to obtain pornography or a right in someone to supply it was soon dispelled.1128 The Court has consistently rejected Stanleys theoretical underpinnings, upholding morality-based regulation of the behavior of consenting adults.1129 Also, Stanley has been held inapplicable to possession of child pornography in the home, the Court determining that the state interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation far exceeds the interest in Stanley of protecting adults from themselves.1130 Apparently for this reason, a states conclusion that punishment of mere possession is a necessary or desirable means of reducing production of child pornography will not be closely scrutinized.1131
1128 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 65-68 (1973). Transportation of unprotected material for private use may be prohibited, United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973), and the mails may be closed, United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971), as may channels of international movement, United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971); United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973).
Speak with a Lawyer in Your Neighborhood
Last modified: September 17, 2012