Document: 354 U.S. 436 77 S.Ct. 1325 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 KINGSLEY BOOKS, Inc., Louis Finkelstein, Doing Business as Times Book Shop, et al., Appellants,v.Peter Campbell BROWN, Corporation Counsel of the City New York. No. 107. Argued April 22, 1957. Decided June 24, Mr. Emanuel Redfield, York City, for appellants. Seymour B. Quel, appellee. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered opinion Court. This is a proceeding under § 22—a Code Criminal Procedure (L.1941, c. 925), amended in 1954 (L.1954, 702). section supplements existing conventional criminal provision dealing with pornography by authorizing chief executive, or legal officer, municipality to invoke 'limited injunctive remedy,' closely defined procedural safeguards, against sale and distribution written printed matter found after due trial be obscene, obtain an order seizure, default surrender, condemned publications.1 2 A complaint dated September 10, 1954, charged appellants displaying paper-covered obscene booklets, fourteen which were annexed, general title 'Nights Horror.' The prayed that enjoined from further booklets,that they required surrender sheriff destruction all copies their possession, and, upon failure do so, commanded seize destroy those copies. same day ordered show cause within four days why should not pendente lite distributing booklets. Appellants consented granting injunction did bring issue promptly, was right subdivision challenged section, provides persons sought 'shall entitled issues one joinder decision shall rendered court two conclusion trial.' After case came trial, judge, sitting equity, booklets annexed introduced evidence clearly obscene—were 'dirt dirt's sake'; he destruction. He refused enjoin 'the later issues' on ground 'to rule at volume offered would * impose unreasonable prior restraint freedom press.' 208 Misc. 150, 167, 142 N.Y.S.2d 735, 750. 3 Not challenging construction statute finding obscenity, took direct appeal Court Appeals, constitutionality sole question open them. That (one judge sitting) no constitutional infirmity: three judges supported unanimous detailed discussion, other deemed brief disposition justified 'ample authority.' N.Y.2d 177, 189, 151 639, 134 N.E.2d 461, 468. claim Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment made throughout state litigation brought here appeal. 352 962, 350, 319. 4 Neither nor here, assail legislation insofar it outlaws obscenity. make lies very narrow compass. Their attack power employ remedial scheme 22—a. Authorization lite, part this scheme, during period obscenity must promptly tried adjudicated adversary '(a) dequate notice, judicial hearing, (and) fair determination' are assured, 164, 747, safeguard frustration public interest effectuating condemnation matter. It brake temptation exploit filthy business limited hazards piecemeal prosecutions, sale, publication already obscene. enacted procedure basis study joint legislative committee. Resort remedy, claimed, beyond amounts censorship literary product such violative 'freedom thought, speech' has been 'withdrawn encroachment states.' Palko v. State Connecticut, 302 319, 326—327, 58 149, 152—153, 82 L.Ed. 288. Reliance particularly placed Near Minnesota, 283 697, 51 625, 75 1357. 5 In unbroken series cases extending over long stretch Court's history, accepted postulate primary requirements decency may enforced publications.' Id., page 716, 631. And so our starting point can constitutionally convict keeping incontestably Roth United States (Alberts California), 476, 1304. immediate problem then whether adopt auxiliary means merchandising 6 We need linger suggestion something drawn out restricts process seeking protect its people dissemination pornography. thus limit resorting various weapons armory law. Whether proscribed conduct visited prosecution qui tam action some these remedies combination, legislature's range choice. See Tigner Texas, 310 141, 148, 60 879, 882, 84 1124. If chooses subject who disseminate 'literature' also deal books deodands old, both, regard, course, appropriate opportunities underlying issue, us gainsay selection remedies. Just supra, landmark opinions shaping protection speech press, left doubts 'Liberty speech, absolute right,' 708, 628, likewise clear even previous absolutely unlimited.' To sure, limitation exception; confined preclude what fairly licensing censorship. 7 angle vision testing validity like operation effect substance.' 713, 630. phrase 'prior restraint' self-wielding sword. Nor serve talismanic test. duty closer analysis critical judgment applying thought behind authoritatively put brings weighty learning his support protected liberties: 'What needed,' writes Professor Paul A. Freund, 'is pragmatic assessment particular circumstances. generalization obnoxious civil liberties yield more particularistic analysis.' Supreme Civil Liberties, Vand.L.Rev. 533, 539. 8 Wherein does differ effective type upheld Alberts? Section 311 California's Penal 'Every person wilfully lewdly keeps any book guilty misdemeanor *.' 1141 York's Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, 40 similar. One bold assert terrorem statutes less restrains booksellers before law strikes than Instead requiring bookseller dread offer may, without warning, him hazard imprisonment, assures consequences cannot follow unless ignores specifically directed prompt carefully circumscribed determination Until then, keep sell own rather steer 'nervously among treacherous shoals.' Warburg, Onward Upward With Arts, Yorker, 20, 1957, pp. 98, 101, connection R. Martin Secker Ltd., (1954) All Eng. 683 (C.C.C.). 9 enforcement interfere book's solicitation precisely stage. each situation moves publication; either have yet passed into hands public. Alberts record there had reached time charge lodged, while fact whose several weeks when served. notice penal consequences. suffer fine imprisonment violation statute, other, disobedience temporary injunction. course stand confidently believe could but both modes provide deterrent adjudication content—the threat subsequent penalization.2 10 method devised determining essential safeguards provided many making publications misdemeanor. For example, State's operation, defendant thereby jury trial. trier fact; each, discretion summoned. Compare N.Y. Courts Act, 31, Sub. 1(c) 4, Practice 430. (Appellants, fact, request courts below require jury, Court.) Of necessity having prosecutions. 11 restrictive expression result conviction Alberts, fined $500, sentenced sixty prison, probation years condition violate statute. only completely separated society months seriously restrained trafficking considerable time. Appellants, hand, theretofore published adjudged Thus, merchants narrower imposed Alberts. 12 22—a's seizure instruments ascertained wrongdoing expresses resort remedy sanctioned history Anglo-American Holmes, Common 24—26; Van Oster Kansas, 272 465, 47 133, 71 354; Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. States, 254 505, 510—511, 41 190—191, 65 376; Lawton Steele, 152 14 499, 38 385, see Urbuteit, 335 355, 69 112, 93 61, misbranded articles 304(a) Food, Drug, Cosmetic 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U.S.C.A. 334(a). worth noting although reveal destroyed, §§ 313 314 California Code. Similarly, 1144 Law following dissemination. 13 remains say difference between glaring fact. glaringly different judged criteria Minnesota empowered future because past offensive. language Chief Hughes, 'This essence censorship.' As such, unconstitutional. enough condemn wholly apart involved matters derogatory officer. Unlike Near, concerned solely construed, studiously withholds affirmed. 15 Affirmed. 16 WARREN, dissenting. 17 My views purveyance expressed Here we entirely situation. 18 case. ordering materials disseminated convicted offense doing authorized provisions laws States. wherein police, located which, opinion, unfit use obtained 19 majority sanctions proceeding. I not. decided today, places There totally lacking standard judging context. personal element basic absent. my judgment, object impact depending setting placed. Under irrelevant. 20 manner determine individual judged, quality art literature. otherwise hence Constitution. Certainly absence illegal use, books, pictures objects destroyed. savors too much burning. reverse. 22 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting, announced BRENNAN. 23 reasons think restraining dissolved. 24 First, gives paralyzing censor. decree ex parte—without hearing ruling defended little encroachment, given made. But every publisher knows awful issued secret have. tread First grounds. nothing devastating rights guarantees restrain held. worst. 25 Second, equity literature violence Amendment. finds acts quite Rochester. selling tracts juveniles, Rochester sold professional people. nature group distributed important bearing guilt prosecution. Yet present makes conclusive authorizes statewide subjects distributor contempt power. separate entitles accused Juries opinions, community community, leeway system. defend utterance merits today uttered yeaterday. Free regulated diseased cattle impure butter. audience (in jury) hissed yesterday applaud performance. 26 regime approved goes far toward censor supreme. substitutes punishment respects transgresses guarantees. 27 reverse 28 BRENNAN, 29 fatal defect. Provision trials causes 430 Act,1 discretionary trials, advisory verdicts, followed rejected deems fit proper.2 30 1304, held obscenity—whether average person, contemporary standards, dominant theme material taken whole appeals prurient interest. allowed right, reach necessary securing freedoms press included 31 represents cross-section special aptitude reflecting view person. Jury therefore peculiarly competent application definition, calls appraisal according person's standards. afford defendant, falls short, view, giving proper fashioned demanded questions generally, initially question, i.e., reasonable men obscene.3 32 '§ Obscene prints articles; jurisdiction. supreme jurisdiction articles, hereinafter specified: '1. executive officer city, town village corporation counsel, if none, town, village, firm sells distributes about distribute possession intent acquire book, magazine, pamphlet, comic story paper, writing, picture, drawing, photograph, figure, image indecent character, lewd, lascivious, filthy, disgusting, contains article instrument immoral purports purpose; respect eleven hundred forty-one law, maintain prevent acquisition figure herein described '2. '3. event final entered favor enjoined, contain directing county paragraph hereof same. '4. file undertaking issuance hereof, liable costs damages sustained reason where enjoined. '5. Every sells, distributes, acquires service summons pursuant chargeable knowledge contents thereof.' comparison takes note where, ultimately bookseller, nevertheless attempts punish interim know, impliedly prevails Gilbert-Bliss' N.Y.Civil Vol. 3B, 1942, Learned Tillotson, 97 1; Bolognino Bolognino, 136 656, 241 N.Y.S. 445 (S.Ct.), affirmed 231 App.Div. 817, 246 883. Parmelee 72 App.D.C. 203, 205, 113 F.2d 729, 731; Dennett, Cir., 39 564, 568, 76 A.L.R. 1092.

Category: 2