Court Opinion

ID: 9644869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:06:59.064226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:19.342357
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Bell :
I believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the Constitutionality of statutes which prohibit the obscene or the immoral or the sacrilegious, are confusing, but the recent cases of Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) — subsequent to Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, which compelled this Court’s decision in Hallmark Productions, Inc. v. Carroll, 384 Pa. 348, 121 A. 2d 584 — indicate that these words are no longer considered too vague and indefinite. The Roth and the Alberts cases sustained the validity of statutes which prohibited the obscene.*
An act of obscenity has been an offense against the public for centuries and has been so recognized by the Courts of England, by the Courts of Pennsylvania and by the Federal Courts: Rex v. Curl, 2 Str. 789 (1727) ; Commonwealth v. New, 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 358, 16 A. 2d 437; Commonwealth v. Donaducy, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 611, 76 A. 2d 440; cf. also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568; Winters v. People of the State of New York, 333 U.S. 507; Commonwealth v. DeGrange, 97 Pa. Superior Ct. 181; Commonwealth v. Schoen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 211.
I believe that the words obscene, immoral and sacrilegious are words of such general and common usage that they have acquired a well and commonly *423understood meaning. I would therefore protect the interests of the moral and deeply religious people of Pennsylvania by sustaining the validity and the Constitutionality of our statutes which punish the obscene or the immoral or the sacrilegious.*

 Cf. however, Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 355 U.S. 35. Cf. also, Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Kansas State Board of Review, 350 U.S. 870; Superior Films v. Department of Education and Commercial Pictures v. Regents, 346 U.S. 587.

 In view of the majority’s disposition of this ease it is unnecessary to analyze all the language of the statute under which defendant was indicted or to discuss the alleged trial errors.