Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts
Citations: 16 L. Ed. 2d 1; 86 S. Ct. 975; 383 U.S. 413; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2906; 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1390Docket: 368
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 21, 1966; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Justice Brennan delivered the Court's judgment in a case concerning the obscenity of "Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" (Fanny Hill) by John Cleland, which was deemed obscene in a civil equity suit initiated by the Massachusetts Attorney General. The suit, filed under Massachusetts General Laws, required the book to be named directly in the petition, and a notice to show cause was published and sent to the alleged publisher, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, who intervened but did not seek a jury trial. During the Superior Court hearing, the book was presented along with expert testimony and other evidence, but neither party introduced evidence regarding the book's publication and distribution. The trial justice ruled that the book was obscene and not entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protections. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld this ruling. The case turned on the interpretation of "obscene" as defined by the Roth v. United States standard, which includes three elements: (a) the material must appeal to prurient interest in sex, (b) it must be patently offensive by contemporary community standards, and (c) it must lack redeeming social value. The state court claimed to apply this definition and found all criteria met. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating the lower court misinterpreted the criterion concerning social value. The court evaluated whether the book "Memoirs" could be considered "utterly without social importance." Despite expert testimony suggesting the book has some literary merit and moral value, the court clarified that minimal literary value does not equate to social importance. It emphasized that a book appealing to prurient interest and being patently offensive is not required to be "unqualifiedly worthless" to be deemed obscene. The Supreme Judicial Court's interpretation was deemed erroneous, asserting that a book must be shown to have no redeeming social value to be proscribed. The court stated that social value must be assessed independently from prurient appeal and offensiveness. It noted that while "Memoirs" might have minimal social value, this finding necessitates a reversal of the lower court's judgment. Additionally, the production, sale, and publicity circumstances could influence a determination of obscenity, particularly if the book was commercially exploited solely for prurient appeal. However, in this case, the assessment of obscenity was made in the abstract without those specific circumstances, which meant all potential uses of the book had to be considered. The risk of exploitation by panderers does not negate the book's redeeming social importance given its acknowledged literary and historical value. The decision was reversed, with Justices Black and Stewart concurring for reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in related cases. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272, § 28B establishes penalties for individuals involved in the distribution of obscene, indecent, or impure books. Offenders face imprisonment for up to five years, or up to two and a half years in jail, or fines ranging from $100 to $5,000, or both. § 28C allows the attorney general or district attorney to file a petition in equity against a book suspected to be obscene. Upon filing, a superior court justice may issue an order of notice to interested parties, requiring them to show cause why the book should not be deemed obscene. Notice must be published weekly for two weeks in relevant newspapers and sent by registered mail to the publisher and copyright holder at least 14 days prior to the hearing. Following the notice, the court can make an interlocutory finding that the book is obscene until a final determination is made. § 28D permits any interested party to respond and request a jury trial on the obscenity issue by the return date specified in the notice. If no responses are filed, under § 28E, the court may declare a default and adjudicate the book as obscene if warranted. If an appearance is entered and an answer is filed, the case will be scheduled for a prompt hearing. A default and order will be issued against individuals who do not appear or answer, following the procedures outlined in section 28E. The hearing will adhere to standard equity proceedings, allowing for exceptions and appeals. The court may hear expert testimony and evaluate the book's literary, cultural, and educational aspects, including its publication and distribution methods. The court may issue an adjudication as specified in section 28E. An information or petition in equity filed under section 28C cannot be contested on the grounds that it merely seeks a judgment, order, or decree without claiming relief regarding the defendant’s awareness of the book's obscenity or indecency. In trials under section 28B, evidence of any proceedings filed under section 28C will be admissible. If a final decree against the book was issued before an offense, the defendant is presumed to have known the book was obscene. Conversely, if a decree favored the book, the defendant is presumed not to have known it was obscene. If no final decree existed but a proceeding was filed before the offense, the defendant is presumed to have knowledge of the book's contents. Justice Whittemore, dissenting from the Supreme Judicial Court, cited testimony from several academic professionals who regarded the book as a minor work of art with literary merit and historical value, infused with calculated comedy. They noted that, while some scenes could be offensive if described in modern language, the book avoids such language, creating a distance from the sexual content. The descriptions of depravity are deemed non-obscene as they serve a primarily literary interest. The reactions to these scenes were characterized by anger, disgust, and horror. The book is positioned within the history of English literature rather than as mere obscenity. One witness commented that Cleland's work reflects an 18th-century cultural battle between restrictive moralism and a more liberated attitude towards life, paralleling themes found in Fielding's "Tom Jones." Richardson's novels, 'Pamela' and 'Clarissa,' are contrasted with Cleland's work, which reverses their moral themes, emphasizing the differing views on chastity held by Richardson and Cleland. An academic witness asserts that Cleland’s book lacks literary merit and is obscene, classifying it as hard core pornography. The legal framework under § 28B criminalizes the knowledge-based distribution of obscene material, while § 28H allows prior decrees of obscenity to be used as evidence in prosecutions, creating a presumption of knowledge regarding the book’s obscenity. This declaration may lead to the book's suppression in the Commonwealth. The issue at hand is whether the state courts erred in declaring the book obscene, with the Attorney General's petition asserting its distribution within the Commonwealth. The declaration's potential impact on distribution is noted, particularly concerning future prosecutions under Massachusetts obscenity laws. The excerpt discusses the interpretation of related terms in the statute, indicating that material with social value cannot be deemed obscene merely based on its sexual content. The dissenting opinion highlights concerns about distributing the book to minors, suggesting it could violate obscenity laws aimed at protecting youth. However, the court's decree was broad and did not limit its application to minors, leaving constitutional questions open.