Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-24
OBSCENITY
Continued from First Pag,

Continued from First Pag,
cause Of vaguesness. whether tn
power to punish indecent ant
immoral speech and press shoult
be left solely to the States ans
whether the postal regulation it,
self went beyond the Post ONO,
Departments specified admins.
trative field.
Douglas. Black Dissent
Justice Douglas dissent. con.
CURED in by Justice Black, de.
clared that the banning Of book,
W hich might incite lustfu
thoughts. without provoking &C.
ton. would violate the FRS
amendment pertaining to free.
dom Of speech and belief.
When We sustain these con-
vlctions We make the legality
of a publication turn on the
purity Of thought which a booI
or tract instills in the mind Of
the reader" Justice Douglas
wrote.
Il do not think we can an.
prove that standard and bt
faithful to the command of thu
First Amendment which by it:
terms is a restraint on Con-
gresS !" -
At another point, Justice
Douglas wrote: by these stand.
ards, punishment is inflicted foi
thoughts provoked. not for over,
acts nor antisocial conduct. Thi:
test cannot be squared with oul
decisions under the First Amend.
ment."
Thoughts Aroused
The justice declared that tn,
test by which the conviction!
were obtained required only thu
arousing Of sexual thoughts.
Yet the arousing Of sexual
thoughts and desires happen,
every day in normal life in
dozens Of ways" Justice Dougla.
stated.
He continued: Nearly SC
years ago a QUESTIONABLE sen,
to college and normal school
women graduates asked what
things were most stimulating
sexually.
"Of 400 replies. nine said
music: II said pictures: %
said dancing: 40 said drama
IS said books; and 2l8 said
man."
Besides emphasizing that "ob-
scenity is not within the area OF
Constitutionally protected speech
OF press" the majority opinion
rejected practically all the other
contentious Of the defendants.
1T is strenuously urged "(by
the defendants)" Justice Bren-
nan continued, that these OBJ
scenity statutes offend the Con-
stitutional guarantees because
they punish incitation to impure
sexual thoughts. not shown to be
related to any overt anti-social
conduct. 1T is insisted that the
Constitutional guarantees are
violated because convictions may
be had without proof either that
obscene material will perceptibly
create a clear and present danger
of anti-social conduct or will
probably induce its recipients to
such conduct"
Part Rulings Cited
Justice Brennan, however
called attention to the high
courts past rulings that libel
for example, Is not within the
area Of Constitutionally pro-
tected speech and need not be
considered in connection with the
clear and present danger" doc
trine.
Justice Brennan declared that
obscene speech is essentially In
the same category. He made clear
that sex and obscenity are moi
synonymous" He defined obscene
material as material which
deals with sex in a manner APP
pealing to prurient interest"
He emphasized also the ne
cessity of standards for judg-
ing obscenity but the opinion
held that the trial courts in the
cases followed proper standards
Justice Douglas dissenting
opinion asserted that 1.-THE test
of obscenity the court indorses
today gives the censor free range
over a vast domain.
ITO allow the State to step
in and punish mere speech fol-
publication that the Judge OF
the jury thinks have an undesir-
able impact on thoughts but that
is not shown to be a part Of UNI
lawful action is drastically tc
curtail the First Amendment"
Other Fields Mentioned
The standard OF obscenity a,
that which offends the common
conscience Of the community
would not be an acceptable one
II religion. economies, politics OF
philosophy were involved, Justice
Douglas stated.
How does II become q con.
stitutional standard when litera