Court Opinion

ID: 9527523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:15.942279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:51.078534
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
I am still of the opinion that LSA-R.Sv 14:106(3), Act 314 of 1950, Sec. 1(3), is constitutional for the reasons set forth in *301the original opinion, of which I was the author, and to which views I adhere.
The decision in the case of Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, which I feel is applicable to this matter and supports my views, has been cited with approval in the cases of Mounce v. United States of America, 9 Cir., 247 F.2d 148, 149;1 United States v. Keller, 3 Cir., 259 F.2d 54, I again quote the charge given to the jury in the Roth case, supra [354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1312], which was approved by the United States Supreme Court:
“The test in each case is the effect of the book, picture or publication considered as a whole, not upon any particular class, but upon all those whom it is likely to reach. In other words, you determine its impact upon the average person in the community.
The books, pictures and circulars must be judged as a whole, in their entire context, and you are not to consider detached or separate portions in reaching a conclusion. You judge the circulars, pictures and publications which have been put in evidence by present-day standards of the community. You may ask yourselves does it offend the common conscience of the community by present-day standards.”
I believe that the above test applies to a case such as the instant one. The noun “performance” can be substituted for “books, pictures, and circulars.”
I repeat: The word “performance” and the words “of any act of lewdness or indecency, grossly scandalous and tending to debauch the morals and manners of the public,” as set forth in LSA-R.S. 14:106 (3), clearly and immediately indicate exactly what the legislature intended.
*303It is interesting to note that not once has anyone who urged that the statute herein involved is unconstitutional, even faintly suggested how the Obscenity Law should he worded so as to make it constitutional.
I respectfully dissent.

. “We are in agreement with Judge Driver’s opinion that the standard to be applied in determining whether or not publications are obscene within the meaning of § 1305(a) of Title 19 Ü.S.C.A. ‘is the judgment of the average, normal, reasonable, prudent person of the community in which the publication is circulated. If, at the time of such circulation, considered as a whole it offends the sense of propriety, morality, and decency of such average person, it is within the bar of the statute. Otherwise it is not. Guided by these general principles * * the trier of facts must draw the line as best he can between art and pornography —between what is permissible and what is objectionable and obscene.’
“We find no error in the trial court’s findings of fact, based upon its application of this standard to the facts established b* the record in this case. We adopt Judge Driver’s opinion as the opinion of the court. United States v. 4200 Copies International. Journal, D.C., 134 F. Supp. 490, 493.
“The constitutional questions which appellant has raised in this court and which were not discussed in the opinion of the district court have been foreclosed by the decision of the Supremo Court in Roth v. United States, [354 U.S. 476] 77 S.Ct. 1304 [1 L.Ed.2d 1498],
“The judgment is affirmed.”