Document: 405 U.S. 313 92 S.Ct. 993 31 L.Ed.2d 258 William RABE, Petitioner,v.State of WASHINGTON. No. 71—247. Argued Feb. 29, 1972. Decided March 20, Rehearing Denied April 24, See 406 911, 1604. L. Dwyer, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner. Curtis Ludwig, Kennewick, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner was the manager Park Y Drive-In Theatre in Richland, Washington, where motion picture Carmen Baby shown. The is a loose adaptation Bizet's opera Carmen, containing sexually frank scenes but no instances sexual consummation are explicitly portrayed. After reviewing film from outside theater fence on two successive evenings, police officer obtained warrant and arrested petitioner violating Washington's obscenity statute. Wash.Rev.Code § 9.68.010. later convicted and, appeal, Supreme Court Washington affirmed, 79 Wash.2d 254, 484 P.2d 917 (1971). We granted certiorari. 404 909, 228, 30 181. reverse petitioner's conviction. 2 statute under which convicted, 9.68.010, made criminal knowing display 'obscene' pictures: 3 'Every person who— 4 '(1) Having knowledge contents thereof shall exhibit, sell, distribute, sale or distribution, having have his possession with intent to sell distribute any book, magazine, pamphlet, comic newspaper, writing, photograph, film, phonograph record, tape wire recording, picture, drawing, figure, image, object thing obscene; 5 '(2) cause be performed exhibited, engage performance exhibition show, act, play, dance 6 'Shall guilty gross misdemeanor.' 7 In affirming conviction, however, did not hold that obscene test laid down by this Court's prior decisions. E.g., Roth v. United States, 354 476, 77 1304, 1498; A Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs Woman Pleasure' Attorney General Com. Massachusetts, 383 413, 86 975, 16 1. Uncertain 'whether movie offensive standards relating matters area whether advocated ideas artistic literary value,' court concluded if it 'were apply strict rules Roth, 'Carmen Baby' probably would pass definitional viewing audience consisted only consenting adults.' Wash.2d, at 263, P.2d, 922. Respondent read opinion more narrowly, nonetheless implied because had 'redeeming social value' not, itself, standard. upheld reasoning 'the context its exhibition,' obscene. Ibid. 8 To avoid constitutional vice vagueness, necessary, minimum, give fair notice certain conduct proscribed. prosecuted, mention 'context' location an element offense somehow modifying word 'obscene.' Petitioner's conviction thus affirmed meaning quite different one he charged violating. 9 'It as much violation due process send accused prison following charge never tried convict him upon made.' Cole Arkansas, 333 196, 201, 68 514, 517, L.Ed. 644. cannot, therefore, allowed stand. Gregory City Chicago, 394 111, 89 946, 22 134; Garner Louisiana, 368 157, 82 248, 207; supra. 10 Under interpretation given 9.68.010 criminally punished showing drive-in may exhibit adults indoor impunity. statute, so construed, impermissibly vague applied failure liability dependent place 11 What we said last Term Cohen California, 403 15, 19, 91 1780, 1785, 29 284, answers respondent's contention peculiar interest prohibiting outdoor displays pictures justifies application petitioner: 12 'Any attempt support ground seeks preserve appropriately decorous atmosphere courthouse must fail absence language put appellant kinds otherwise permissible speech nevertheless California law, tolerated places. . No reading phrase 'offensive conduct' can sufficiently inform ordinary distinctions between locations thereby created.' 13 need decide broad questions tendered us parties. simply State punish used has vital offense. 14 judgment reversed. 15 Reversed. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring. 17 I concur solely general circumstances case, sustained consistent fundamental requirements Due Process Clause. evidence revealed screen clearly visible motorists passing nearby public highway family residences. addition, young teenage children were observed chain link enclosing grounds. I, one, unwilling First Amendment prevents such depicting explicit activities undertook do narrowly drawn protect potential exposure materials. Redrup New York, 386 767, 87 1414, 18 515 (1967).1 Public materials described record significantly noxious nuisance traditionally within power States regulate prohibit, my view, involve significant countervailing considerations.2 That shows could properly prohibited, doubt, state constitutionally required For examples recent statutes regulating displays, see Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13—537 (Supp.1971—1972); N.Y. Penal Law McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 40, §§ 245.10—245.11 (Supp.1971—1972). circumstances, very method thrust isolated public, 489, 1311, 1498 (1957), requirement 'taken whole' little relevance. me, treated libel action: there some article, average tone tenor whole; libelous part protected.

Category: 2