Court Opinion

ID: 9713154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:09:29.798556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.015778
License: Public Domain

Abrams, J.
(with whom Liacos, J., joins, dissenting). I agree that our obscenity statute, G. L. c. 272, §§ 28C-31, meets the requirements set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-27 (1973). Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 371 Mass. 374, 381-386 (1976). See Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 767, 771-776 (1977); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 308-309 (1977). In the past we have stated that the fact that we rested a decision wholly on the Federal Constitution as construed by the United States Supreme Court should not give rise to any inference “that the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of this Commonwealth is less capable of protecting the essentials of freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly than is the Federal Constitution. See arts. 16 and 19.” Commonwealth v. Gilfedder, 321 Mass. 335, 343 (1947). When a decision rests on controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, “we forbear academic discussion of the Declaration of Rights of our own Constitution.” Brattle Films, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 333 Mass. 58, 61 (1955). Recently we have determined that in some circumstances art. 16 protects expres*808sion which might not be entitled to protection as a matter of Federal constitutional law. Commonwealth v. Sees, ante 532, 536-537 (1978).
While a majority of this court have held that under art. 16 our obscenity statute is constitutional, Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., supra at 381,1 would hold that under art. 16 obscenity is speech subject to reasonable restrictions protecting unwilling viewers,1 captive audiences,2 minors,3 and possibly the neighborhood.4 Commonwealth v. Zone Book, Inc., 372 Mass. 366, 373-374 (1977) (Liacos, J., concurring). Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 103-113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 495-503 (Vintage Books, 1970). Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography 51-62 (1971).5 Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877, 937-939 (1963). Richards, Free Speech and Obscenity Law: Toward a Moral Theory of the First Amendment, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. *80945, 83-84 (1974). See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 567 (1969); Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 769 (1967); Comment, In Quest of a “Decent Society”: Obscenity and the Burger Court, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 89, 118-123 (1973).6
The right to express and receive ideas is fundamental to our society. See Stanley v. Georgia, supra at 564. When no public behavioral consequences are involved, as is the case when consenting adults view or read material, art. 16 guarantees the unfettered exercise of this right. See Emerson, 72 Yale L.J. at 938; Richards, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 82-90; Comment, 49 Wash. L. Rev. at 118-123. This guaranty of freedom of speech is not confined to the expression of views which are not offensive to the majority. Freedom of speech is “not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate” (emphasis added), United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting), overruled in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946). Obscene material may express ideas and opinions. See Richards, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 79-82. Therefore, however distasteful these ideas are to some, art. 16 prohibits restriction of access to them by consenting adults.
However, the special nature of obscene materials and the effect they have on unwilling recipients justify the State’s assertion of an interest in protecting such recipients. It is a presently accepted premise that exposure of erotic material to “a person contrary to his wishes has all the characteristics of a physical assault. The harm is direct, immediate, and not controllable by regulating subsequent action. Such communications can therefore realistically be classified as action. Moreover, from a slightly different point of view, forcing obscenity upon another person constitutes an invasion of his privacy, and for that reason also falls outside the system *810of freedom of expression.” T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 496 (Vintage Books, 1971). Allowing State regulation of obscene material only when such material constitutes an intrusion on an unwilling public or on minors would recognize the rights of consenting adults to receive uncensored ideas and opinions and would respect the rights of others to be free from the equivalent of a harmful physical assault.
Moreover, such an approach to the obscenity statute would serve many beneficial purposes.7 This court has recognized that any formulation of an obscenity standard requires that we be ever vigilant that the fine line between obscenity and protected expression is not transgressed. See Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 371 Mass. 374, 380 (1976). Judges are not trained for such a task, and they apparently are not able to apply accurately the standards which have been developed. “In a long series of cases the Supreme Court has invariably, with two inexplicable exceptions, reversed all judgments based on findings of obscenity in cases which apparently involved all types of alleged pornography. The phrase ‘hard-core pornography,’ ... is little more than a cliche which has not been defined in any case, nor has it apparently been a premise for the affirmation of even one judgment of guilt” (footnotes omitted). Commonwealth v. Horton, 365 Mass. 164, 175-176 (1974) (Hennessey, J., concurring). The current test which is enunciated in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), appears to offer no easy solution to this problem. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974) (no jury could correctly find the film “Carnal Knowledge” obscene).
Of course, I do not think that this approach will avoid all the problems inherent in the area of obscenity. By focusing on intrusions on an unwilling public or minors, however, *811some of the uncertainty now pervading obscenity litigation could be eliminated. Courts, which are accustomed to deciding issues in light of factual circumstances, would be better able to adjudicate disputes which turn on the existence of such an intrusion than to serve in the role of censors or arbiters of taste. See Commonwealth v. Horton, supra at 178 (Kaplan, J., concurring).
Such an approach also takes “notice of abundant empirical evidence that the community has tolerated increasingly permissive displays of pornographic literature and X-rated movies.” Commonwealth v. Horton, supra at 176 (Hennessey, J., concurring). Rather than embark on another “seventeen years [of] confusion ... as to the validity and effectiveness of obscenity statutes,” id. at 174 (Hennessey, J., concurring), I would direct courts’ efforts and those of police and prosecutors to those instances in which there is an assault on the public, rather than to the nearly impossible task of enforcing laws against the dissemination of obscene material to consenting adults.8 See Grant & Angoff, Massachusetts and Censorship, 10 R.U.L. Rev. 36 (1930).
Since there is no evidence of a thrust on an unwilling public, a captive audience, or a neighborhood, or any involvement of minors, I would reverse the convictions.

 See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49,105-107 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 769 (1967); Revere v. Aucella, 369 Mass. 138, 142-143 (1975), appeal dismissed sub nom. Charger Invs., Inc. v. Corbett, 429 U.S. 877 (1976). Cf. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 208-212 (1975).

See, e.g., Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 304 (1974).

 See, e.g., Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49,105-107 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 195 (1964). See also Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115, 120 (1973). Cf. Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957). I do not consider distribution to minors in detail since it is not involved in this case. See G. L. c. 272, § 28; St. 1977, c. 917.

See, e.g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 71-72 (1976) ; Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Cf. Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Selectmen of Southborough, 373 Mass. 279, 287 n.13 (1977) .

 The Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography recommended the repeal of laws forbidding dissemination of explicit sexual material to consenting adults (id. at 51-56), the adoption of “public display” laws designed to protect unwilling viewers from offensive depictions of sexual activity (id. at 60-62, 67), and the adoption of laws prohibiting dissemination of pornography to minors (id. at 56-60, 66-67).

 Six States — Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia — have enacted obscenity statutes which only prohibit distribution to minors. See Lockhart, Escape From the Chill of Uncertainty: Explicit Sex and The First Amendment, 9 Ga. L. Rev. 533, 535 nn.12, 13 (1975).

 Not the least of such benefits is that such an approach would serve “as an anchor to windward and as a guard against surprise in case of some future shift in the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Commonwealth v. Monosson, 351 Mass. 327, 330 (1966) (search warrant affidavit).

 See Commonwealth v. Balthazar, 366 Mass. 298, 302 (1974); Commonwealth v. Scagliotti, 373 Mass. 626, 628-629 (1977); Commonwealth v. King, ante 5, 14 (1977). See also Commonwealth v. Reilly, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 437 (1977). The primary inference to be drawn from the variety of circumstances presented by these cases is that there are limits on the ability of the Commonwealth to intrude into the private behavior of consenting adults in the area of sexual conduct. This limitation occurring as it does in the context of some of the most personal of life’s choices may well apply to obscenity viewed or read by consenting adults.