Court Opinion

ID: 9697004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:03:24.729708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:45.233151
License: Public Domain

Hallows, J.
(concurring in dissent). I concur in the dissent written by Mr. Chief Justice Brown and in addition emphasize my disagreement with several propositions espoused by the majority. The balancing concept and the “hard-core pornography” concept alluded to in the majority opinion read something into Roth v. United States (1957), 354 U. S. 476, 77 Sup. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. (2d) 1498, which is not there. That decision is clear obscenity is not protected by the First amendment and the theory that purpose, ideas, and style are saving graces for obscenity is not espoused. Nor do I think any “balancing” is included in sec. 269.565, Stats. Purpose and literary quality are to be considered in determining the classification of a work but not in the balancing sense that some literary or social value or the subjective purpose of the author, or all three, are redeeming features which invoke the blessings of the constitution upon what is obscene in its dominant theme. It is *156important to determine whether a book is a medical treatise on anatomy or a novel or other form of writing read for pleasure and enjoyment, but if the latter’s, dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest of the average man applying contemporary community standards, it is not saved by its literary style. Obscenity is only increased and heightened by being couched in literary artistry. Neither can obscenity have redeeming social importance. It is fallacious to argue what would be otherwise obscene is not obscene because it has social significance or some literary merit. The end (social significance or literary merit) does not justify the means (appeal to the prurient interest).
The concept of obscenity under sec. 269.565, Stats., or other state statutes may be more inclusive than the concept applied to federal statutes. It was pointed out in Roth that the “local moral fabric” which obscenity statutes protect is primarily and directly the responsibility and care of the states not of the federal government, and such powers of the federal government as exist in this field are only incidental to other powers such as the postal power.
Nor can I agree with the contention of the appellants that the Roth Case only includes “hard-core pornography” in the concept of obscenity. The majority opinion therein did not use the term. The dissenting opinion referred to it in connection with the limited power of the federal government. The respondent points out in his brief the difference between obscenity, pornography, and hard-core, pornography is an extralegal mythical distinction hyperbolized by dissemi-nators of obscene literature to undermine the effect of the Roth definition. All pornography is obscene. “Hard-core” can only mean a greater degree of obscenity, but can it be said that any pornography or obscenity is good? “Patently offensive” is another distinction of degree, not of nature. The less patent obscenity becomes, the more insidious the appeal to prurient interests. Our legislature in enacting *157sec. 269.565, Stats., made no such distinctions but considered all obscenity bad and has also enacted sec. 944.22, which provides punishment by fine and imprisonment, or both, for the sale of obscene material.
Under the rules applicable to the scope of this court’s power to review findings made by a trial court, the majority opinion must stand for the proposition that “Tropic of Cancer” is as a matter of law not obscene. The majority cannot reach that conclusion on the basis of a finding of fact in view of the record before us. Neither the facts nor the rule stated in the Will of Mechler (1944), 246 Wis. 45, 16 N. W. (2d) 373, cited by the majority is applicable. We are not confronted solely with inferences to be drawn from a written instrument. The rule of State v. Chobot (1960), 12 Wis. (2d) 110, 106 N. W. (2d) 286, applies. If the majority is correct, no need exists for the taking of any testimony of witnesses concerning the contemporary community standards of morality. While the majority accepts testimony of witnesses of social and literary value rejected by the trier of the fact, it draws its own judgment of obscenity from reading the book and ignores the greater weight of the testimony of the effect of the book judged by community standards. In this process it is not clear whether the majority considers the book is not obscene by any standards or whether the Milwaukee community standards of obscenity are so low that the book does not offend them.
In making its finding the book is not obscene, the majority has given no consideration to the respondent’s witnesses. One was a manager of a major distributor of books in the Milwaukee area who determines and evaluates the reading habits of the people in Milwaukee from examining the type of books returned after being on display in the various outlets for a period of time. His annual sales ranged between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000. About 40 percent of the books on display are returned. He testified supermarkets and *158drugstores were selective in what they displayed because they did not want books on their racks which would embarrass them in the eyes of their customers and none of the 170 supermarkets would accept Tropic of Cancer on their racks and 98 percent of the drugstores refused it. This certainly is of some importance and indication of what the contemporary community standard is. Also ignored was the testimony of a rabbi with twenty-four years’ experience as a spiritual adviser, an educator and a holder of a Master’s and Doctor’s degree, an author and reviewer of books, and active in civic affairs. He testified that applying contemporary community standards the book appealed to the prurient interest of the average person in Milwaukee. Given no weight by the majority opinion was the testimony of a priest having a Master’s degree in English literature, a student and a teacher of English literature, and a writer for monthly magazines. He also did counseling work relating to marital difficulties, alcoholism, youth, sex, and emotional problems. He testified the dominant theme of the book, applying contemporary community standards, appealed to the prurient interest of the average person and the book had no educational value or cultural value. Another witness, a teacher by profession, a possessor of a Bachelor’s degree in Jewish education, a Bachelor of Science in education, a Master’s and a Doctor’s degree in education, and an author, testified that from his experience with all types of people, the book had no worthwhile purpose or educational value and was obscene, applying contemporary community standards. A probation officer with a Master’s degree in social science, a former instructor in the social work at the University of Wisconsin and having eleven years’ experience in the probation department, testified the book had no social value and the dominant theme was an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person. *159He further testified the book tended to tear down and destroy generally accepted moral values as they existed. A Lutheran minister engaged extensively in counseling work, holding a Master’s degree in education, and active on many civic committees, testified the dominant theme of the book appealed to the prurient interest of the average person in Milwaukee and the book would have deteriorating effect on the moral structure of the community.
In opposition to this, witnesses were produced by appellants, several of whom were primarily concerned with the intent of the author and not with the effect of the book upon the average person or society; another who used vulgar language in his family circle and who seemed to consider that prurience was something outside of an individual rather than an interest which exists within a person; and another who stated it was natural for persons of the same gender to have sex experience together and who disclaimed knowing the meaning of the word “normal” or “abnormal.”
The majority opinion concludes upon reading the,, book the dominant theme does not appeal to prurient interest although it was “hard put to express the theme.” The fact the Tropic of Cancer has received the attention of some critics and appears to be a truthful portrayal of an unsavory segment of life is considered a redeeming feature. Vulgar, unprintable words, which are offensive to many people, are justified and the blunt description of normal and abnormal sexual transactions are treated as contributing to the effectiveness of the portrayal. I think the majority gave too little consideration to contemporary community standards and to the duty of the state to protect the local moral fabric of its people through its police power in adopting sec. 269.565, Stats., and to the harm which the book will do to community morals. Freedom of speech we should and must have but it is not a right to be obscene. I would affirm.