Court Opinion

ID: 9660985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:25:38.620283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.921404
License: Public Domain

Danhof, J.,
(concurring). At the risk of being termed a fool for treading where those of higher stature might fear to tread, and being mindful that those concerned with the jurisprudence of obscenity will little note nor long remember what we state herein, it is nevertheless the duty of this Court to make a decision in this matter.
*339If there be those who have doubts concerning the fractionalized nature of the law as regards obscenity, we invite their attention to Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 US 767 (87 S Ct 1414, 18 L Ed 2d 515). We can only hope that ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States will hand down to those of us on a lower level more definitive guidelines than we now have. However, pending that clairvoyant guidance we must proceed on the basis of what we have.
This writer is of the opinion that the criteria set forth in Roth v. United States (1957), 354 US 476 (77 S Ct 1304, 1 L Ed 2d 1498) as supplemented by Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), 383 US 413 (86 S Ct 975, 16 L Ed 2d 1) are still controlling in the area of obscenity. The other cases which have dealt with this subject matter are merely interpretive of these basic propositions. Applying these criteria to the materials at hand*, I concur with my brother Holbrook in regard to exhibits 1 thru 15. In so doing I am mindful that counsel for the appellants has admitted that the publications in question are utterly without redeeming social value. The trial court, having applied the necessary criteria and being in a much more advantageous position to be aware of the contemporary community standards than we are, must be affirmed.
I do not find in this case the elements of “pandering” which were present in Ginzburg v. United States (1966), 383 US 463 (86 S Ct 942, 16 L Ed 2d 31), nor do I deem it necessary that these be present. Also, Redrup v. New York, supra, must stand on the facts of that case and it has not overruled Roth and Memoirs, supra.
*340I concur also in the decision of my brother Holbrook as regards exhibit 19.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed except as it relates to exhibit 19.
No costs, a public question being involved.

 At least those who believe that nothing is obscene have the advantage of not being required to view the publications.