Court Opinion

ID: 9757896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:03:25.975264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:45.399829
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I dissent. The reading of even a few pages of or excerpts from “Candy” clearly discloses that it is a very obscene, lewd, filthy book, without a single redeeming feature. It is a vivid portrayal of sexual life in which sex is glorified as a way of life.
In the light of recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, no one can be sure what is “obscenity.” It is not clear whether the Supreme Court believes that the First Amendment protects freedom *222of speech absolutely,* without any limitations, or whether it merely holds that a book or any publication is not obscene unless it violates each of the following-three tests:
1. The book or publication must appeal to “prurient” interests in sex — not more than a handful in every thousand persons understand what prurient means.
2. The second test apparently required by a majority of the Supreme Court is that before a finding of legal obscenity can be sustained, the evidence must show that “the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards** relating to the description or representation of sexual matters.” Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 418; Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476.
3. A book or publication cannot be proscribed unless it is found to be “utterly without redeeming social value.”
In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S., supra, the Court said (page 418) : “We defined obscenity in Both in the following terms: ‘[Wjhether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.’ 354 U.S., at 489. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material *223taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.”
To briefly summarize: The Supreme Court cannot define obscenity in language which a majority of Judges or of lawyers or of laymen understand. However, notwithstanding the fact that it is high on the “best sellers list” and its wide popularity, “Candy”* is a very obscene, dirty “sex” book without a single redeeming feature or the slightest social value, and no matter what legal test is applied it should be banned.

 Freedom of speech is not absolute and unlimited. For example, a person is not protected by the First Amendment if he slanders or libels someone (with certain nonpertinent exceptions), or if he yells “fire” in a theatre or crowded place without any justification, or if he advocates treason against our Oountry.

 The Court has been unable to agree on the meaning of community standards — whether the words apply to the Nation at large or to some local or smaller sector.

 See, for example, TIME Magazine which apparently approves it even though it describes the book as “dirty as Hell.”