Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/423/898/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:21:15+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 423 › RATNER v. U.S.
of Mr. Justice Black,3 that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity abridges freedom of speech and of the press contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 502 F.2d 1300.
Finally, it appears from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was not adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioner must be given an opportunity to have his case decided on, and introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which his convictions have ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for a determination whether petitioner should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.
Footnote 1 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73 (1973); Memoris v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 426- 433 (1966); Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 491-492 (1966); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514 (1957).
Footnote 3 Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 476, 16 L. Ed.2d 31 (1966); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 515-518 (1966).
[Footnote 1] Although four of us would grant and reverse, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.