Document: 386 U.S. 767 87 S.Ct. 1414 18 L.Ed.2d 515 Robert REDRUP, Petitioner,v.STATE OF NEW YORK. William L. AUSTIN, Petitioner, v . STATE KENTUCKY. GENT et al., Appellants, v. ARKANSAS. Nos. 3, 16, 50. Argued Oct. 10 and 11, 1966. Decided May 8, 1967. Rehearing Denied June 12, See 388 924, 2091. Sam Rosenwein, Burbank, Cal., for petitioner Redrup. H. Richard Uviller, New York City, respondent State of York. Stanley Fleishman, Hollywood, Austin. John B. Browning, Frankfort, Ky., Kentucky. Emanuel Redfield, appellant Gent al. Fletcher Jackson, Little Rock, Ark., appellee Arkansas. PER CURIAM. 1 These three cases arise from a recurring conflict—the conflict between asserted state power to suppress the distribution books magazines through criminal or civil proceedings, guarantees First Fourteenth Amendments United States Constitution. I. 2 In No. Redrup York, was clerk at City newsstand. A plainclothes patrolman approached newsstand, saw two paperback on rack—Lust Pool, Shame Agent—and asked them by name. The handed him collected price $1.65. As result this transaction, charged in Criminal Court with violating law.1 He convicted, conviction affirmed appeal. 3 Austin Kentucky, owned operated retail bookstore newsstand Paducah, woman resident Paducah purchased sales-girl petitioner's store, after asking name—High Heels, Spree. transaction stands convicted Kentucky courts law that State.2 4 50, Arkansas, prosecuting attorney Eleventh Judicial District Arkansas brought proceeding under statute3 have certain issues various declared obscene, enjoin their obtain judgment ordering surrender destruction. proceeded against were: Gent, Swank, Bachelor, Modern Man, Cavalcade, Gentleman, Ace, Sir. County Chancery entered requested trial an advisory jury, Supreme affirmed, minor modifications.4 5 none there claim statute question reflected specific limited concern juveniles. Prince Commonwealth Massachusetts, 321 158, 64 438, 88 L.Ed. 645; cf. Butler Michigan, 352 380, 77 524, 412. any suggestion assault upon individual privacy publication manner so obtrusive as make it impossible unwilling avoid exposure it. Cf. Breard Alexandria, 341 622, 71 920, 95 1233; Public Utilities Comm'n Columbia Pollak, 343 451, 72 813, 96 1068. And evidence sort 'pandering' which found significant Ginzburg States, 383 463, 86 942, 16 31. II. 6 originally review these particularized questions, hypothesis material involved each case character described 'obscene constitutional sense' Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs Woman Pleasure' Attorney General Com. 413, 418, 975, 977, 1.5 But we concluded wic h invalid, accordingly can should be decided common controlling fundamental basis, without prejudice questions granted. We concluded, short, publications is protected governmental suppression, whether civil, personam rem.6 7 Two members consistently adhered view utterly suppress, control punish writings pictures ground 'obscenity.'7 third has held opinion State's area narrowly distinct clearly identifiable class material.8 Others subscribed not dissimilar standard, holding may constitutionally inhibit literary obscene unless '(a) dominant theme taken whole appeals prurient interest sex; (b) patently offensive because affronts contemporary community standards relating description representation sexual matters; (c) redeeming social value,' emphasizing 'three elements must coalesce,' no such 'be proscribed value.' Clelands' 418—419, 977—978. Another Justice viewed 'social value' element independent factor obscenity. Id., 460—462, 998—999 (dissenting opinion). 8 Whichever views bear before us, clear judgments cannot stand. Accordingly, reversed. It ordered. 9 Judgments Mr. HARLAN, whom CLARK joins, dissenting. 11 cases, were consider governing application scienter requirement announced Smith People California, 361 147, 80 215, 205, obscenity prosecutions. There defendant criminally purveying shown had some kind knowledge material; quality knowledge, however, defined. case, validity comprehensive anti-obscenity statute, light doctrines 'vagueness' 'prior restraint.' writs certiorari Austin, notation probable jurisdiction respectively issues, thus laying aside, purposes permissibility determinations obsceniy challenged publications. Accordingly vel non discussed briefs oral arguments parties. 12 argued together beginning Term. Today, rules materials could adjudged rendering adjudication other unnecessary. disposes issue deliberately excluded review, refuses pass here. 13 my dispositions do reflect well processes Court, I think decided. Failing that, prefer cast vote dismiss improvidently granted and, circumstances, appeal lack substantial federal question. deem more appropriate defer expression own here until occasion when prepared come grips issues. N.Y.Penal Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 40, § 1141(1). Ky.Rev.Stat. 436.100. Appeals denied plenary conviction, Chief S.W.2d 270. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 41—2713 41—2728. 239 Ark. 474, 393 219. 384 916, 1362, 438; 937, 1454, 537. contention basically timely but unsuccessfully proceedings. properly explicitly presented 476, 482, 950, 953 opinions); Jacobellis Ohio, 378 184, 196, 84 1676, 1682, 793 (concurring opinion); Roth 354 508, 1304, 1321, 1498 499, n. 956 also Magrath, Obscenity Cases: Grapes Roth, 1966 Review 7, 69—77.

Category: 2