Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 22, 1964; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Goldberg, delivered the Court's opinion regarding the appeal of Nico Jacobellis, who was convicted for possessing and exhibiting an obscene film, "Les Amants," in violation of Ohio law. Jacobellis faced fines of $500 and $2,000 for two counts, with the potential for a workhouse sentence if fines were unpaid. His conviction was upheld by both an intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court of Ohio. The central issue was whether the film was deemed obscene and thus not protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court concluded that the film is not obscene, reversing the lower court's judgment.
The opinion emphasized that motion pictures fall under constitutional protections for free speech and press, referencing prior cases that delineate obscenity's exclusion from these protections. The ruling underscored the necessity for the Court to determine whether a work is obscene, rejecting suggestions that such judgments should be left to lower courts or juries. The Court reaffirmed its role in upholding constitutional guarantees, indicating that the obscenity determination inherently involves constitutional law issues and must be decided by the Supreme Court. The opinion also highlighted the Court's consistent obligation to independently review facts in cases involving constitutional rights, particularly those under the First Amendment.
The court asserts its obligation to independently evaluate statements in question and the context of their creation to determine their protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Jacobellis’s criminal conviction for distributing expressive material raises concerns regarding his constitutional rights. The court rejects the notion that assessing obscenity equates to censorship, emphasizing that it must apply constitutional standards to various forms of speech, including criticisms and advocacy.
The court reaffirms the standard set in Roth, which defines obscenity based on whether, to an average person using contemporary community standards, the material’s predominant theme appeals to prurient interest. While acknowledging the imperfections of this standard, the court maintains it as the guiding principle, stating that material deemed obscene must be "utterly without redeeming social importance." It clarifies that depictions of sex in art, literature, or science do not automatically disqualify a work from constitutional protection, especially if the material has social significance.
The court emphasizes that any evaluation of a work’s obscenity must first establish that it exceeds societal norms of decency before considering its prurient appeal. Without such a substantial deviation, any investigation into its appeal contravenes the protections afforded by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The concept of "contemporary community standards" in the Roth test does not imply that obscenity determinations should be based on local community standards. Instead, Judge Learned Hand's interpretation suggests that the term "obscene" should reflect societal consensus at a broader level, not confined to specific localities. Hand argued that obscenity should indicate the evolving moral standards of society as a whole, rather than being tethered to the lowest common denominator of local communities. Justice Harlan reinforced this view in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, emphasizing that applying local standards could unjustly restrict access to materials deemed acceptable in other regions. This approach would lead to a chilling effect on the dissemination of expressive works, as sellers and exhibitors would avoid risks of criminal penalties based on varying local interpretations of obscenity. The document highlights the challenge of balancing individual rights with those of diverse local communities while maintaining constitutional protections for expression.
Communities differ in their tolerance of obscenity, but such differences do not warrant varying standards for the application of the Federal Constitution. The Court has consistently faced the challenge of balancing the rights of local communities and individual defendants under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This balancing act is complex but essential to determining whether a conviction infringes on constitutional rights. The Court has previously established that the limits of free expression should not fluctuate with state or local boundaries, reaffirming that the constitutional status of allegedly obscene material should be assessed using a national standard.
While states and localities have a legitimate interest in protecting children from harmful materials, this does not justify a complete ban on such content, which would unduly restrict adult access. Instead, authorities might focus on targeted laws to prevent children's exposure to certain materials. The current conviction stems from the public exhibition of a film, not its showing to children, thus requiring a strict constitutional standard for review.
The film in question, *The Lovers*, features a storyline about a woman who leaves her family for a younger man and includes an explicit love scene that sparked state objections. Despite mixed reviews, the film was well-received by several critics and shown in many major cities. After reviewing the film and the trial court's record, the Court concluded it does not meet the obscenity criteria established in previous cases (Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California), leading to the reversal of the conviction. Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, concurred, emphasizing that convicting individuals for film exhibition infringes upon First Amendment protections, a view supported by prior opinions on the matter.
Selling, exhibiting, or possessing obscene literature or drugs for criminal purposes is strictly prohibited. Individuals cannot knowingly sell, lend, give away, or exhibit obscene materials, including books, magazines, films, and any items of an indecent or immoral nature, nor can they possess or promote them in any way. This prohibition extends to materials containing lewd or lascivious content and to drugs intended for contraception or abortion. Violating these regulations incurs penalties of a fine between $200 and $2,000, imprisonment for one to seven years, or both.
The excerpt emphasizes that the constitutional protections of free expression apply equally to state and federal obscenity laws, dismissing any notion that they differ in application. The Supreme Court's previous rulings have established that constitutional standards in obscenity cases require independent judicial review, as judges have a better grasp of free expression issues than government officials or jurors. This underscores the necessity for appellate judges, guided by the Supreme Court, to oversee the evaluation of obscenity to prevent undue government censorship.
The Court's actions in Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, One, Inc. v. Olesen, and Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield illustrate the judicial duty to evaluate constitutional obligations, a principle also recognized by state courts in cases such as State v. Hudson County News Co., Zeitlin v. Arnebergh, and People v. Richmond County News, Inc. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code underscores the necessity for de novo review in matters of "constitutional fact," rejecting the relaxation of this duty by relying on a "sufficient evidence" standard. Obscenity is defined as material that predominantly appeals to prurient interests and exceeds customary limits of candor in its representations. Relevant legal definitions and interpretations are supported by references to dictionaries and additional case law, indicating a comprehensive framework for assessing obscenity.
