Court Opinion

ID: 9687216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:19:03.098641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.883702
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(concurring). On matters of obscenity where constitutional fact questions are involved, it is my view that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court still require this court, making its appellate review of the trial court’s determination herein, to make an independent determination of whether the magazines are obscene.1
Since this court decided Court v. State,2 the United States Supreme Court reversed this court’s obscenity ruling in State v. Kois,3 and in so doing made an independent review of the trial court’s determination of obscenity.
In my judgment, after making such an independent review here, there is no question but what each of the four magazines in question is obscene. Each is nothing more than a compilation of photographs of nudes and seminudes of both sexes with the genitalia area promi*44nently displayed. The photographed persons are in provocative and seductive positions, so that their only appeal is to the prurient interests of the reader. The magazines make no pretense of having any literary or socially redeeming value. They offend the community standards whether considered locally or nationally.4

 See my concurring opinion in Court v. State (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 683, 711,188 N. W. 2d 475.

 Supra, footnote 1.

 (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 668, 188 N. W. 2d 467, reversed sub nom. Kois v. Wisconsin (1972), 408 U. S. 229, 92 Sup. Ct. 2245, 33 L. Ed. 2d 312. See 55 Wis. 2d 512.

 See my concurring opinion in Orito v. State (1972), 55 Wis. 2d 161, 167, 168, 197 N. W. 2d 763.