Document: 431 U.S. 767 97 S.Ct. 2085 52 L.Ed.2d 738 Wesley WARD, Appellant,v.State of ILLINOIS. No. 76-415. Argued April 27, 1977. Decided June 9, Syllabus Prior to the decision in Miller v. California, 413 15, 93 2607, 37 419, appellant was convicted selling obscene sado-masochistic materials violation Illinois obscenity statute forbidding sale matter and providing that "(a) thing is if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal prurient interest, is, shameful or morbid interest nudity, sex excretion, if it goes substantially beyond customary limits candor description representation such matters." The conviction affirmed after Miller, Supreme Court rejecting appellant's challenge constitutionality for failure conform standards, well his claim publications question were not obscene. Held : 1. unconstitutionally vague failing give notice dealing with kind sexual conduct involved here could be legally sold State, where (whether State has complied Miller's requirement may depicted must specifically defined by applicable state law written authoritatively construed) had ample guidance from previous making clear did law. Pp. 771-773. 2. Sado-masochistic are proscribed law, Mishkin New York, 383 502, 86 958, 16 56 even though they expressly included within examples kinds sexually explicit representations used explicate aspect definition patently offensive depictions conduct. P. 773. 3. properly found courts below under statute, which conforms except retains stricter "redeeming social value" criterion announced Memoirs Massachusetts, 413, 975, 4. overbroad intends proscribe, appears prior decisions Court, although describing intended referred guideline requiring inquiry "whether work depicts describes, way, law," incorporated part thereby adopt explanatory examples, gave substantive meaning indicating reach. 773-776. 63 Ill.2d 437, 349 N.E.2d 47, affirmed. J. Steven Beckett, Urbana, Ill., appellant. Melbourne A. Noel, Jr., Oak Park, appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 principal issue this case validity light 419 (1973). There we reaffirmed numerous declaring "obscene material unprotected First Amendment", id., at 23, 2614; but acknowledging "the inherent dangers undertaking regulate any form expression", ibid., recognized official regulation limited "works depict describe conduct" "must construed." Id., 24, S.Ct., 2615. Basic guidelines trier fact, along more specific suggestions, then offered: 2 "The basic fact be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find work, taken appeals Kois Wisconsin (,408 229, 230, 92 2245, 2246, 33 312 (1972)), quoting Roth United States, (354 476, 489, 77 1304, 1311, 1498 (1957)); (b) law; (c) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific value. We do constitutional standard 'utterly without redeeming value' test U.S., 977; concept never commanded adherence than three Justices one time. See supra, 21. If regulates thus limited, construed, Amendment values States through Fourteenth adequately protected ultimate power appellate an independent review claims when necessary. Wisconsin, 408 232, 2247; 459-460, 998 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Jacobellis Ohio, 378 184, 204, 84 1676, 1686 York Times Co. Sullivan, 376 254, 284-285, 710, 728, 11 686 (1964); 354 497-498, 1315-1316 concurring dissenting). 3 "We emphasize our function propose regulatory schemes States. That await their concrete legislative efforts. It possible, however, few plain what define opinion, supra 4 Patently descriptions acts, normal perverted, actual simulated. 5 "(b) masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition genitals." 24-25, (Footnotes omitted.) 6 Rev.Stat., c. 38, § 11-20(a)(1) (1975), forbids matter. Section 11-20(b) defines "obscene" follows: 7 "A matters. A latent, undeveloped photographs."1 8 In October 1971 Ward charged having two 11-20(a)(1). jury waived. At bench trial State's evidence consisted solely "Bizarre World" "Illustrated Case Histories, Study Sado-Masochism" testimony police officer who purchased them Ward's store. guilty, 1972, he sentenced day jail fined $200. His Court's Miller. rejected standards 47 (1976). appealed, noted probable jurisdiction, 429 1037, 730, 50 747 (1977), resolve conflict three-judge District Northern Illinois. Eagle Books, Inc. Reinhard, 418 F.Supp. 345 (1976), docketed, 76-366. affirm. 9 (1) As read questions presented Ward,2 subsume four issues. First, failed comply way "specifically construed", see 768, absent compliance because him State. This wholly merit. shall below, case, Materials these, title content fairly described sado-masochistic, been held violate long before sales prosecuted. 10 People Sikora, 32 260, 267-268, 204 772-773 (1965), there detailed recitations statute. These "sadism masochism."3 also City Blue Island DeVilbiss, 41 135, 142, 242 761, 765 (1968);4 cf. Chicago Geraci, 46 576, 582-583, 264 153, 157 (1970).5 construction Sikora gives binding on us, makes 11-20 reaches now have us. cannot these materials, other reasons no purports ban sold. applied (2) Second, assert constitutionally But those specifics offered merely "examples," 25, 2615; and, later pointed out Hamling 87, 114, 94 2887, 2906, 590 (1974), "were exhaustive". Furthermore, suggestion extend protection flagellatory among 505-510, 961-964, (1966). remain unprotected, surely us today deal category which, obscenely described, 12 (3) third simply examined three-part argument foreclosed came down same (1966), employed criteria latter case. Marks 430 188, 194, 990, 994, 51 260 (1977). see, infra, 774-776, set formulation factor. reason differ courts. 13 (4) Fourth, assuming construed overcome vagueness remains proscribe requirement, arguably overbroad, unconstitutional face, invalid predicate conviction. 14 it, overbroad. Ridens, 410, 282 691 (1972), vacated remanded, 912, 3046, 1030 (1973), pending docket judgment issued. Ridens remanded further consideration On remand, explained originally provided tests (1957), subsequently incorporate tripartite including prohibited "utterly value." 59 362, 321 (1974). court proceeded "construe section Criminal Code . parts standards", 373, N.E.2d, 270, retain preference relaxed contained guidelines. Ridens' affirmed, denied certiorari.6 421 993, 95 2000, 44 483 (1975). 15 Because go guidelines, open-ended understand vulnerable respect. into requires law". aware need specificity explaining reach (b). plainly doubt that, incorporating alternative reading lead untenable conclusion chose create fatal flaw refusing take cognizance Gould, 60 159, 324 412 quoted length entire passage beginning 768-770, contains stated include immediately preceding quotation Ill.2d, 164-165, 415. only given explain part, needlessly technical unwarranted opinions conclude themselves. 17 might argued adopted nevertheless exhaustive list agree "in order overbreadth 'must real, substantial well, judged relation statute's legitimate sweep.' (Broadrick Oklahoma, 601, 615, 2908, 2918, 830, 842.)" 372, 269. Since enough cases response recognizes limitations represented laws, hold 18 Given done attempting bring conformity much post-Miller federal statutes. U.S.C. 1461, prohibits mailing matter, sort of" hardcore indicated approval identical approach respect companion provisions 1462, importation transportation 200-Ft. Reels Film, 123, 130 n. 7, 2665, 2670, 500 19 Finding all merit, affirm 20 So ordered. 21 BRENNAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 22 Petitioner allegedly Obscenity Statute, Ill.Rev.Stat., 11-20(a) Although I joined my Brother STEVENS' dissent, reverse ground previously relied upon, namely "clearly face." 913, 914, 3030, 1022 (1973) (BRENNAN, dissenting cases), citing 2627, Illinois, vacating remanding (1972). 23 STEVENS, STEWART, MARSHALL join, 24 confirms statement 2614, "(t)his area eternal verities." Today, silently abandons cornerstones so forcefully just five years ago. stated: 25 "Under holdings today, will subject prosecution exposure unless 'hard core' regulating construed. satisfied prerequisites provide fair dealer public commercial activities prosecution." 2616-2617. 26 stressed elsewhere opinion.1 More defendants "benefit" 902 et seq., 3027, 1015; 197 12, 995, 260. 27 Many courts, taking face value, invalidated laws.2 Others, like "little pay lip service Miller." F. Schauer, Law 167 Like most pre-Miller statutes, terms broad prohibit distribution "appeal interest."3 opinions, made covers examples. not, category.4 28 Nevertheless, affirms theories. first particular defendant obscene, upheld convictions concerning similar material. But, required, difficult why itself issue, 37, 2622. For leaves room often prosecutions past;5 clearly notice.6 29 second theory event, sufficiently satisfy does contain "exhaustive list" ante, 776, passes muster generic reference laws .," ibid. (emphasis original). To person can prosecuted sells list. Only ago, promised "no one" prosecuted, 2616. And "kinds" conduct, adds Constitution creates. Jenkins Georgia, 2750, 642, expression "within either Miller" "sufficiently justify treatment." 161, 2755. 30 One strongest arguments against criminal concept. promise principled effort respond argument. By abandoning withdraws cornerstone structure undoubtedly, hastens downfall. therefore mixed blessing, respectfully dissent. 11-20(c) provides: "(c) Interpretation Evidence. "Obscenity ordinary adults, children specially susceptible audiences character circumstances dissemination designed directed audience." Jurisdictional Statement 11-20, "on vague, indefinite, uncertain, free speech press due process Amendments States"; publications, 'Bizarre World' 'Illustrated Sado-Masochism' protected, law." follows, 772-773: " 'Lust Campus' Andrew Shaw story adventures college campus 'where members faculty taught sin evil.' book describes homosexuals 'necking' beach; mutual masturbation; self-fondling; circle persons engaged oral-genital contact; rape; intercourse; lesbian cunnilingus flagellation; flagellation barbed wire; abortion red-hot masturbation mirror reflection, transvestite episode. 'Passion Bride' John Dexter curricular extracurricular episodes place during honeymoon French Riviera. party between old man prostitutes; attempted intercourse bath; foreplay; rape ending death female broken back male participant. 'Crossroads Lust' various small town. rape. woman stabs course intercourse, completing act dead. voyeurism scenes, involve watching love play. characterized sadism masochism." local ordinance issue: books replete accounts homosexual flagellation, rape, voyeurism, masochism sadism. detail description." 765. scrutiny court: author's abnormal sodomy, contact, anal lesbianism, masochism, vivid, intimately detailed, explicit. (Cf. One, Olesen (1958), 355 371, 78 364, 352.)" 157. Four dissented, waived Rule least request, plenary 994 n., 2000n. "That ." following page, "specific" definitions. E. g., Harding, 114 N.H. 335, 320 A.2d 646 (1974); Tabron, Colo. 646, 544 P.2d 372 (1976); ABC Interstate Theatres, 325 So.2d 123 (Miss.1976); Wedelstedt, 213 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 1973); Commonwealth Horton, 365 Mass. 164, 310 316 statutes passed since definitions See, e. La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 14:106 N.Y. Penal 235.00 (McKinney 1974 Supp. 1976). saved 590, holding final footnote 500, prepared construe words "lewd" "as limiting regulated (Miller )." (Emphasis added.) Hamling, language added: "As above, (12 Film ) 1462 'patently "hard core" California.' provision 1461 2906. well-reasoned three-Judge carefully reviewed authorities concluded meet (ND Ill.1976). founded. terms: Nothing rest defines" depiction hard-core prohibited. remedied deficiency supplying construction. primary discussion (1974) (Ridens II ), uphold Grayned Rockford, 104, 110, 2294, 2300, 222 "(t)he Rockford marked 'flexibility reasonable breadth, rather meticulous .' upon own Raby, 40 392, 240 595 (1968). concerned alleged disorder. next sentence upholding specificity: "It true 26-1(a) attempt particularize myriad fall legislature deliberately frame general terms, prompted futility anticipate enumerate methods disrupting fertile minds devise." 396, 598. Neither defined; indeed, Raby notes survive attack "attempt bounds. attacks, square special defined. Nowhere else limit present again problem, refused narrow statute: informed whose proscribed. statutory includes scope 'prurient interest' 'shameful excretion.' argues erred interpretation defining type reconsider II. extremely term 'obscenity' fine degree precision. express Illinois' withstand objections." 441, 49 Thus, appear anything preclude prosecuting forms defined" decisions. And, provides area. follows opinion: "While brochures some descriptive printed material, primarily consist pictures drawings very explicitly depicting men women groups engaging variety activities, genitals prominently displayed." 18, 2611-2612. somewhat specific: collection cunnilingus, buggery acts performed more." Brief Appellee 70-73, O.T.1972, p. 26. hard how narrowing underlying Yet 115-116, 2906-2907, ex post facto "notice" sufficient.

Category: 2