Court Opinion

ID: 9720653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:38:15.663145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:20.294642
License: Public Domain

Heffernan, J.
(dissenting in part). I must respectfully disagree in part with the factual conclusions reached by the majority. The writer of that opinion states that photographs “accompanying the news article depict a man and woman on a bed having intercourse in a sitting position.” This is sheer speculation. The trial judge made no such finding, and I was unable to find the testimony of any witness that the photographs portrayed the act of sexual intercourse. Accordingly, it must be concluded that the majority reaches its conclusion as a matter of judicial notice. I cannot conclude on the basis of any experience common to all mankind that the attitude assumed by the persons depicted is that of intercourse. It does not so impress me, and I am unable to so facilely denominate the conduct as the majority opinion has done. If it is necessary to label the type of conduct depicted, it would be appropriate to leave that determination to the finder of fact and not to the speculative musing of appellate judges.
More important, however, than this regrettable judicial lapse into unsupported fact finding is the inexplicable conclusion that the article is merely a prop to justify obscene pictures. The record is clear that a photograph was seized by the Milwaukee police, and a vice squad officer suggested the bail for the possessor might be $100,000. The statement in the majority opinion, “Why the pictures are designated $100,000 Photos ... is not disclosed,” is simply contrary to the plain meaning of the news article. It is equally clear that the two pictures printed are similar to the one seized. The majority opinion suggests that, had the original picture been printed, a legitimate news and free-speech purpose would have been served. Clearly that was impossible. The original picture was in the custody of law enforcement officials. The *682publication of the news item and pictures was an attempt to demonstrate that the vice squad officer had acted unreasonably in suggesting the amount of bail. This is the very type of speech and expression that is protected by the first amendment. It is the expression of a political and social point of view critical of governmental conduct —a right which must be given primacy even though in so doing we permit the expression of ideas contrary to the norm and the publication of pictures that are offensive. 1
The Kaleidoscope message is clear. The police seized a picture very similar to the one depicted (this is not disputed). A bail figure of $100,000 was suggested. The article takes the point of view that such suggestion was absurd and oppressive. We need not agree with the Kaleidoscope thesis (the record shows that, in fact, the bail was $100, not the suggested $100,000), to conclude that the point of view is an expression of a political and social criticism of the very kind that is protected by the first amendment. While I do not see what appears to be so clear to the majority, one thing is clear —a fair perusal of the article and photographs makes it apparent that the article is not a mere prop or excuse to print dirty pictures. The article and the photographs are inextricably connected and must be considered together. Under no accepted legal standard, as the facts appear in this record, can the photographs and article legally be held obscene.

 “The right to freely criticize government and those who administer its affairs is a hallmark of our free and democratic republic. Our commitment is to full and free debate and discussion, not to repression, direct or indirect.” Dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Robert W. Hansen in Dalton v. Meister (1971), 52 Wis. 2d 173, 188 N. W. 2d 494.