Court Opinion

ID: 9470727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:14:29.655756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:04.828583
License: Public Domain

MESKILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
Judge Sweet described the articles identified in Schedule 2102 as portraying “nudity, sexual intercourse between consenting participants, apparently adults, as well as oral and anal sex, including explicit and detailed pictures of genitalia.” United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 2102, 81 Civ. 5295, slip op. at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 1981). He found the material “unpleasant, uncouth, tawdry and undeniably pornographic.” Id. at 4. I agree. Judge Sweet concluded that the arti-are not “obscene” within the meaning *138of 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a) (1976 & Supp. V 1981) because they are “not patently offensive under contemporary community standards.” United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 2102, 81 Civ. 5295, slip op. at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 1982). I find this conclusion difficult to accept unless the community standards in New York are so low that nothing is obscene. Yet his conclusion is unassailable as a matter of law in the circumstances of this case.
The only issue here is whether the articles identified in Schedule 2102 are “patently offensive” under contemporary community standards, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2614, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), the community in this case being the area encompassed by the Southern District of New York. 81 Civ. 5295, slip op. at 14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 1981). On a prior appeal to this Court, a different panel from the one today, a panel of which I was a member, reversed Judge Sweet’s finding of non-obscenity because he had relied upon impermissible indicia of community standards. United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 2102, 678 F.2d 433, 435 (2d Cir.1982). Although we had not at that time viewed the articles in question, we suggested in remanding the case “that portrayals of some of the activity [Judge Sweet] described would be ‘patently offensive’ under any standard.” Id. at 435. Today, we affirm. In so doing, the majority accords uncommon deference to Judge Sweet’s “finding that the material is non-obscene,” characterizing it as “virtually shielded from appellate scrutiny, at least absent evidence that it is so clearly unreasonable as to amount to abuse' of discretion.” Unfortunately, our review is limited to a record devoid of evidence pertaining to community standards. Yet, I do not believe that our hands are tied nearly as tight as the majority thinks. While Judge Sweet surely brings a finely honed sense of community standards to the bench, we are not precluded from testing his assessment of how the average person in the Southern District of New York would react to the allegedly obscene articles.
The question is not whether the community approves of the government’s confiscation of these articles; we held in the prior appeal that “the reaction of the community to the wisdom of section 1305 has no bearing on the materials’ ‘patent offensiveness.’ ” Id. The question is whether the average person in the community would find the articles patently offensive. New York City may be the most sophisticated and cosmopolitan community in the nation, but I cannot imagine its residents to be indifferent to what I witnessed in the screening room. If these articles are acceptable to and tolerated by the average member of the community, I wonder if any form of pornography can be lawfully seized pursuant to section 1305 in the Southern District of New York. Measured against the community standards with which I am familiar, these articles are obscene; they offend my sense of decency and insult the standards of the community that I know. However, I am not a resident of nor as well acquainted with New York City as is Judge Sweet, and I am not well versed in the varieties and types of pornography which circulate there. Consequently, I am ill equipped to question Judge Sweet’s assessment. Moreover, the government failed to introduce any evidence pertaining to community standards to facilitate our review. Had this case originated in the District of Connecticut, in a community whose standards are familiar to me, I would not hesitate to reverse; but it did not. I reluctantly concur.