◆ SpookStack

. a _ _% bscenity in 1 Court — \ a‘. Ops9 (Rev, 9-7-56} a dinan Any proscription “of obscenity, that ‘stop all i Ff painont j obscene matter is going to endanger free speech Mohr and any definition that wholfy protects free speech ee ds going ‘to allow some obscenity to escape punish- f a ment. It is the long struggte to balance this Sood ; Trotter , and evil that camé to crisis In the upreme Court / wen Roo éle. Room Holloman in three ‘different cases this week” The way ini "which the Court has shifted the balance Is bound ¢ ‘to disquiet a great many citizens. -. .. : A majority opinion by Justice Brennan upheld P sne coivietion under the Federal obscenity siatuie . enacted in 1872 and another under a California law. j j j In the Roth case, the Sustice found sufficiently ' precise to: meet the challenge of “vagueness” } the Federal law punishing the mailing of “every * ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy hook, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print or other pub- lication of indecent character.” He found accept. able a charge to the jury describing obscene as * “material which deals with sex in a ‘manner ap- ‘ pealing “lo prurient interest,” and putting the exact deterniination up to the juty to decide if the matter as a whole would produce this effect 4 . eh? upon “all those whom it is likely to reach.” ‘> In the Albers case, the Court was also satished ; VA with a similar jury charge and with the California f > ~ LZ ATS! aft = {-. t, eo ao - hm GG \ Se on a Me OR ae ime statute which punishes anyone who “willfully and _ ab hee ee lewdly, elther:. writes, composes, stereotypes, = ' prints, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, * { omer &: ; or exhibits any abscene or indecent .writing, » Wor k- é 44 UL 25 1957 _ paper, or book . : ce Justice Harlen, who concurred in the Albers - s ; case and dissented in the Roth case, voiced fears* , that many will have when: he pointed to the © v danger of encouraging the Federal courte to “rely "on easy labeling and jury verdicts as a substitute — ——— oni Wash. Post and Times Herald for facing up to the tough individual problems'y Wash. News be constitutional judgment involved in every ob: « Wash. Star , scenity, case.” He wisely cited the greater risks * N.Y. Herald ria Federal obscenity laws than in state laws. He Tribune ; warned that standards consented to In the majority * N. Y. Journals opinion might ban “much Of, the great literature # American " 4 ‘of the world.” Ht Is the view of Justice Harlan N. Y. Mirror that “the: Federal Government has no business’ - ir . to bar the sale of books because they might lead to any kind of ‘though and that also is "eur view. . “An even more forthright Rissent by Justice , Douglas, in which Justice Black joined, denounced - j the standard followed in thege cases. “All It (a Wterary work) need to “do,” he éaid, “is to incite |a lascivious thought or arouse a lustful desire, - , The lst of ‘books that fudges or juries can place _damthet—category, Ie entllese” + ices sis atae ee Ba vibe 1957 - Daily Worker N. Y. Daily News N. Y. Times The Worker New Leader eu, Date __1UN 30 1957 _