Court Opinion

ID: 8879816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 20:13:34.334449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:35.061886
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Chief Judge
(dissenting) :
I dissent and vote to affirm the judgment of the district court which held that the film I Am Curious-Yellow should be barred from importation into the United States. That judgment was *203entered upon the verdict of a jury which, after seeing the motion picture and hearing the “experts” regarding its significance, unanimously found that its dominant theme appeals to a prurient interest in sex, that it is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards, and that it is utterly without redeeming social value. All are agreed that Judge Murphy’s charge correctly stated the law and instructed the jury. Indeed, counsel for the appellant took no exception whatever to the charge. I see no good reason why that jury verdict should be disturbed.
My colleagues give no satisfactory explanation why jurors are not as qualified as they to pass upon such questions. The conclusion is inescapable that they really think that the issue of obscenity can be entrusted to juries only if the judges themselves (or, as here, a majority of them) think the matters in question go beyond the limits allowed by law. I had not supposed that only those who wear federal judicial robes are qualified to decide whether a motion picture has any redeeming social value.
It is admitted that in its explicitness this picture goes beyond anything thus far exhibited in this country. As my brother Hays says, “It seems to be conceded that the sexual content of the film is presented with greater explicitness than has been seen in any other film produced for general viewing.” The sexual aspect of the film does not arise from the plot, as that is non-existent; it arises from a decision by the director, Vilgot Sjornan, to produce a film which would shock the audience. He testified that in making the film he deliberately broke sexual taboos or cliches knowing that this would be shocking to the public.
The excerpts from the director’s diary which were published in Sweden emphasize sex and the breaking away from old cliches about sex. The diary makes no mention whatever of any of the aspects of the film which it is claimed give it redeeming social value — the class structure in Sweden, ideas of non-violence, and the like.
Whatever one can say about the alleged significance of the film, which to this captive onlooker was a continuous and unrelieved boredom except for the sexual scenes, it is almost impossible to remember anything about it. The only impact the picture has and the only impact it was designed to have are the sexual scenes; its only interest to the viewer arises from the uncertainty of the method of mutual sexual gratification in which hero and heroine will next indulge.
While the sex is heterosexual, the participants indulge in acts of fellatio and cunnilingus. Needless to say these acts bear no conceivable relevance to any social value, except that of box-office appeal. Moreover, the sexual scenes have nothing whatever to do with the remainder of the picture. Obviously the only interest aroused for the average person is a prurient interest. Nor is it persuasive that the explicit sex scenes take only about 10 minutes out of 120. The enormous visual impact of a motion picture as distinguished from other media cannot be disregarded. Cf. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 61, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965). The combination of sight and sound, in the darkness of the movie theater, result in a uniquely forceful impact on the audience. Because of the nature of this medium, sexual scenes in a motion picture may transcend the bounds of constitutional protection long before a frank description of the same scenes in a book or magazine. Cf. Landau v. Fording, 245 Cal.App.2d 820, 54 Cal.Rptr. 177 (1966), aff’d per curiam, 388 U.S. 456, 87 S.Ct. 2109, 18 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1967). Undoubtedly, the jury was aware of the difference between movies and other media when it found this film to be obscene.
But the majority would take away from the jury the power to pass on these not too difficult and complicated questions by saying that obscenity is “an is*204sue of constitutional law” rather than an issue of fact with respect to which the jury’s finding has its usual conclusive effect. To me this simply means that juries are not to be trusted where a majority of the judges disagree with them.
The action of the majority in nullifying the findings of the jury here goes beyond any case thus far decided in the obscenity area. No case is cited and I can find no case where the Supreme Court has set aside the verdict of a jury which has, under proper instructions, found present the three elements of obscenity as established by Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957) and Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964). There is no reason to suspect that judges are in any better position to pass judgment on these matters than are jurors. Compare Mr. Justice Brennan’s remarks in Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 448, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1331, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (dissenting opinion):
“The jury represents a cross-section of the community and has a special aptitude for reflecting the view of the average person. Jury trial of obscenity therefore provides a peculiarly competent application of the standard for judging obscenity which, by its definition, calls for an appraisal of material according to the average person’s application of contemporary community standards.”1
With due deference to the very considerable intellectual attainments of my colleagues, I submit that when it comes to a question of what goes beyond the permissible in arousing prurient interest in sex, the verdict of a jury of twelve men and women is a far better and more accurate reflection of community standards and social value.2 The jurors are drawn from all walks of life 3 and their less pretentious positions in the community qualify them to answer the questions put to them by Judge Murphy at least as well as circuit judges in their middle sixties who cerebrate in the ivory towers of the judiciary.4
It remains only to comment on Judge Friendly’s tongue-in-cheek admonition to the exhibitors. They are cautioned that state authorities may still intervene if minors are admitted to see the picture or if the film is advertised to capitalize on nudity and sexual activity. All of which seems to me to amount to a concession that the entire public ought to *205be protected against the exploitation for profit of a film which a jury has outlawed for obscenity in violation of the federal statute. However, as the contrary view of my brothers has prevailed here, I join Judge Friendly in pointing out that state and local authorities may intervene if minors are admitted to the audience or if those who promote the exhibition of the film do so in ways which capitalize on the film’s “extensive portrayals of nudity and sexual activity.”
I would affirm the judgment of the district court which barred this film from importation.

. See also Chief Justice Warren, dissenting in Jacobellis, 378 U.S. at 199, 84 S.Ct. at 1686:
“[P]rotection of society’s right to maintain its moral fibre and the effective administration of justice require that this Court not establish itself as an ultimate censor, in each case reading the entire record, viewing the accused material, and making an independent de novo judgment on the question of obscenity. Therefore, once a finding of obscenity has been made below under a proper application of the Roth test, I would apply a ‘sufficient evidence’ standard of review * *

. It is no answer that so-called “experts” testified to social value of the film. Neither juries nor appellate courts are bound by expert testimony. Compare Landau v. Fording, 245 Cal.App.2d 280, 54 Cal.Rptr. 177 (1966), aff’d per curiam, 388 U.S. 456, 87 S.Ct. 2109, 18 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1967), where the film Un Chant D’Amour was held to be obscene notwithstanding testimony in support of the film by seven expert witnesses.
When “expert” witnesses testify, as one did here, that a film such as I Am Curious has religious and moral significance, it is understandable that the jury pays little attention to their testimony. Cf. Transcript at 148-51.

. The records of the district court show that the jury in this case was made up of 7 men and 5 women who resided in New York City and its suburbs. They ranged in age from 32 to 68 years and engaged in widely varying occupations.

. Compare Mr. Justice Black, dissenting in Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 515, 516, 86 S.Ct. 958, 968, 16 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966):
“But because of life tenure, as well as other reasons, the federal judiciary is the least appropriate branch of government to take over censorship responsibilities by deciding what pictures and writings people throughput the land can be permitted to see and read.”