The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1960-01-22
The Court
and Smith
JOSEPH BREIC

A condition not far short of total confusion in
the matter of obscene literature exists today as a result
of decisions of the present US. Supreme Court.
An additional-and maddening complication
was introduced a couple of weeks ago in the case of
Los Angeles bookseller Eleazar Smith,
Up to then, the courts interpretations had
created a situation which, in essence, boiled down to
three central points.
|. obseenity Is NOT entitled TO projection under The
free-speeeh and ~free-press guarantees Of the consfi-
fulton.
z. Anything short Of ebseenity does not enjoy
those projections.
;. But what ebseenity is, depends on Contempt
rary community standards" as Interpreted by the
courts, and ultimately by the Supreme Court.
A fourth, and frustrating, element was added
when the justices upset Smiths conviction because
Smith had not been proved to have been aware of the
contents of the book he was arrested for displaying.
The book dealt with perversion, and was on a
table with a sign saying that "only persons q years
of age and over may handle books on this table"
THE | ANGELES judge who found Smith
guilty held that the sign was evidence that Smith was
aware of the contents of the book.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
What is most diScouraging, however, is the fact
that the Supreme Court ruled that a bookseller cannot
be convicted unless it is proved that he knew the book
was Of questionable content.
Justice William ]. Brennan. Jr, wrote the ma
jority opinion. He argued that if booksellers we're re-
CURED to know what they are selling, "the pubic's
access to OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES matter might be
severely restricted
What ] am unable to understand is the courts
failure to look at the other side of that coin.
IF BOOKSELLERS may offer for sale anything at
all as long as they do not know the contents, then OBJ
viously they can sell anything and everything, no mat
ter how obscene.
All they need do is refrain from reading the books.
Either that, or every law-enf0rcement agency must
create a book-review section, study all books, decide
which are obscene, and serve official notice on all
booksellers.
Offhand, | cannot think of any other area of
merchandising in which the man who sells is not held
responsible for knowing something about what he
offers for purchase.
may not dispense drugs ~wil1ynilly.
Grocers and butchers are not permitted to sell tainted
foods.
Auto manufacturers cannot plead ignorance
about the dependabilty of brakes. A toy-maker must
use care that his products be not deadly to children
Justice BrennanS argument seems to me super
fetal.
The court might reasonably have held that q
bookseller alone cannot bear the whole burden of de
Gliding what is obscene under the present confusing
interpretations.
But to rule that booksellers have no responsibility
unless they read the books is to invite them to avoid
reading them and then to plead ignorance.
FURTHER, it is exceeding dangerous to lay
down the principle that everything goes in the field of
publishing except outright obscenity.
The present court seems to see in the Constitution
a total preoccupation with individual liberty without
tude
Finally, the court in the Smith case was silent on
the claim of Smiths attorneys that since the justices
had already upheld advocacy of adultry as a c~onstitu-
tlonal right, they must likewise uphold advocacy of
peryersion.
Sooner or later. this court - or some later court
will be forced to face up to the logical consequences
of the curious interpretations being handed down.