 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SUMMARY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUSTICE OHIO SUPREME COURT REARGUMENT CONVICTION EXHIBITING FILM STANDARD SOCIAL IMPORTANCE AMENDMENT APPEALS APPELLANT MOTION PICTURE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION COMMUNITY CURIAE JACOBELLIS OBSCENITY LAW ALLEGEDLY OBSCENE JUDGEMENT JUSTICE GOLDBERG FREEDOM PRURIENT LITERATURE NBSP JUSTIFY PREVENTING DISSEMINATION MATERIAL DEEMED HARMFUL TOTAL SUPPRESSION |
U U.S. Supreme Court JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) 378 U.S. 184 JACOBELLIS v. OHIO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 11. Argued March 26, 1963. Restored to the calendar for reargument April 29, 1963. Reargued April 1, 1964. Decided June 22, 1964. Appellant, manager of a motion picture theater, was convicted under a state obscenity law of possessing and exhibiting an allegedly obscene film, and the State Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 184-198. 173 Ohio St. 22, 179 N. E. 2d 777, reversed. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, concluded that: 1. Though motion pictures are within the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, obscenity is not within those guarantees. P. 187. 2. This Court cannot avoid making an independent judgment as to whether material condemned as obscene is constitutionally protected. Pp. 187-190. 3. The test for obscenity is "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 . Pp. 191-195. (a) A work cannot be proscribed unless it is "utterly without redeeming social importance," and hence material that deals with sex in a manner that advocates ideas, or that has literary or scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance,SNIPPETS: |
|
2
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION PICTURE NBSP FILM JUDGEMENT OBSCENE OPINION CONSTITUTION JUSTICE OHIO CONVICTION SUPREME COURT APPEALS JUDGES STANDARD FREE EXPRESSION OBSCENITY JACOBELLIS EXHIBITING AMENDMENTS FOOTNOTE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY JUSTICE GOLDBERG JUSTICE GOLDBERG JOINS APPELLANT MOTION PICTURE THEATER POSSESSING APPELLATE COURT |
U
U.S. Supreme Court
JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184
(1964)
378 U.S. 184
JACOBELLIS v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 11.
Argued March 26, 1963. Restored to the calendar for reargument April 29, 1963.
Reargued April 1, 1964.
Decided June 22, 1964.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an
opinion in which MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG joins.
Appellant, Nico Jacobellis, manager of a motion picture theater in Cleveland
Heights, Ohio, was convicted on two counts of possessing and exhibiting an
obscene film in [378 U.S. 184,
186] violation of Ohio Revised Code (1963 Supp.), 2905.34. 1 He was fined $500 on the
first count and $2,000 on the second, and was sentenced to the workhouse if the
fines were not paid. His conviction, by a court of three judges upon waiver of
trial by jury, was affirmed by an intermediate appellate court, 115 Ohio App.
226, 175 N. E. 2d 123, and by the Supreme Court of Ohio, 173 Ohio St. 22, 179
N. E. 2d 777. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal, 371
U.S. 808 , and subsequently restored the case to the calendar for
reargument, 373
U.S. 901 . The dispositive question is whether the state courts properly
found that the motion picture involved a French film called "Les
Amants" ("The Lovers"), was obscene and [378 U.S. 184, 187] hence not
the protection for free expression that is guaranteed by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that the film is not obscene and that the
judgment must accordingly be reversed.
Motion pictures are within the ambit of the constitutional guarantees of freedom
of speech and of the press. Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343
U.S. 495 . But in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354
U.S. 476 , we held that obscenity is not subject to those guarantees.
Application of an obscenity law to suppress a motion picture thus requires
ascertainment of the "dim and uncertain line" that often separates
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
DISSENTING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OBSCENITY MATERIALS ROTH LAW PROTECTION NBSP STANDARDS OPINION PROSCRIPTION ENFORCEMENT EVIDENCE JUSTICE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OHIO SOCIETY NATION REASON COMMUNITY PICTURE JUDGEMENT SUPREME COURT DISSENTING RIGHTS FIRST AMENDMENT LEGISLATURES SATISFACTORY DEFINITION UNITED STATES MATTER BOOKS |
U U.S. Supreme Court JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) 378 U.S. 184 JACOBELLIS v. OHIO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 11. Argued March 26, 1963. Restored to the calendar for reargument April 29, 1963. Reargued April 1, 1964. Decided June 22, 1964. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, with whom MR. JUSTICE CLARK joins, dissenting. In this and other cases in this area of the law, which are coming to us in ever-increasing numbers, we are faced with the resolution of rights basic both to individuals and to society as a whole. Specifically, we are called upon to reconcile the right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society and, on the other hand, the right of individuals to express themselves freely in accordance with the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although the Federal Government and virtually every State has had laws proscribing obscenity since the Union was formed, and although this Court has recently decided that obscenity is not within the protection of the First Amendment, 1 neither courts nor legislatures have been able to evolve a truly satisfactory definition of obscenity. In other areas of the law, terms like "negligence," although in common use for centuries, have been difficult to define except in the most general manner. Yet the courts have been able to function in such areas with a reasonable degree of efficiency. The obscenity problem, however, is aggravated by the fact that it involves the area of public expression, an area in which a broad range of freedom is vital to our society and is constitutionally protected. Recently this Court put its hand to the task of defining the term "obscenity" in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 . The definition enunciated in that case has generated much legal speculation as well as further judicial interpretation by state and federal courts. It has also been relied upon by legislatures. Yet obscenity cases continue to come to this Court, and it becomes increasingly apparent that weSNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
