Court Opinion

ID: 9757895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:03:25.971532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:45.398796
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
. Most reluctantly, I join with the majority of this ■Court in .reversing the decree of the court below. Were •it not for the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in this area of the law — decisions which are *221binding upon us — I would have no hesitation in determining that “Candy” is an obscene book. Although the United States Supreme Court has not specifically held that “Candy” is not obscene, my review of its pronouncements on what is and what is not obscene convinces me that “Candy” does not satisfy its definition of an obscene book.
In reaching this conclusion, I want to reiterate my agreement with the view expressed by Mr. Justice Roberts in his concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Robin, 421 Pa. 70, 72, 73, 218 A. 2d 546, 547 (1966) that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court do not “preclude governmental action designed to shield our juvenile population from the potentially adverse effect of premature exposure to” books such as “Candy”, “Tropic of Cancer”, etc. The easy access of such books to those of juvenile age is a matter of serious concern and to this problem our Legislature should address itself. In my opinion, the Legislature has not only the power but the duty to prevent access to such books of those who “lack the emotional maturity and judgment to place [such books] in proper perspective”. (Rohin, supra, p. 73).
Mr. Justice Eagen and Mr. Justice O’Brien join in this concurring opinion.