◆ SpookStack

which would not be desirable for them to read, would hardly be sufficient to bar a publication otherwise proper.... Even the court in Regina v. Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. at p. 367... paid that ‘the circumstances of the publication' may determine whether the statute has been violated." United States v. Dennett, 39 F.2d 564, 568 (2d Cir. 1930). Finally, a situation very similar to the one at bar was decided in United States v. One Unbound Volume, etc., 128 FP. Supp. 280 (D. Md. 1955). Claimant had attempted to import a collection of prints which depicted statues, vases, lamps, and other antique artifacts which were decorated with or dis- played erotic activities, features, or symbols, and whioh portrayed acts of sodomy and other forns of perverted sexual practice. While finding that the study of erotica in ancient times was a recognized field of archeology, the court, after referring to the fact that the claimant was a microchenist and, at best, an amateur archeologist, significantly added: "J do hot believe the present state of the taste and morals of the community would approve the public exhibition of a collection of objects similar to those shown on the prints, nor the public exhibition or sale of the prints themselves,” «RR ai eed Sr although in my opinion most norma] men and women in this country would approve the owmership of such a publication . by a museum, library, college or other educational institution, 4 - 15 -