Court Opinion

ID: 9712364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:52:22.542834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.648843
License: Public Domain

*19Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I am in complete agreement with the Court’s disposition of these cases. It is appropriate, however, to observe that the scholarly opinion of Judge Hoffman, speaking for a majority of the Superior Court, see 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 349, 227 A. 2d 915 (1967), was Written before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S. Ct. 1414 (1967), and before this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Dell Publications, Inc., 427 Pa. 189, 233 A. 2d 840 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 948, 88 S. Ct. 1038 (1968). Thus it should be pointed out that nothing in these two later cases casts any doubt on the Superior Court’s determination in the instant cases. See Commonwealth v. Dell Publications, Inc., 427 Pa. at 201, 233 A. 2d at 847.
In Redrup, supra, the Supreme Court noted: “In none of the cases was there a claim that the statute in question reflected a specific and limited state concern for juveniles. ... In none was there any suggestion of an assault upon individual privacy by publication in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it. . . . And in none was there evidence of the sort of ‘pandering’ which the Court found significant in Ginzburg v. United States....” 386 U.S. at 769, 87 S. Ct. at 1415. The same must be said of the cases now before us. See Commonwealth v. Baer, 209 Pa. Superior Ct. at 352, 356, 227 A. 2d at 917, 919 (as to “pandering” and juveniles).