Facts
- The Supreme Court consolidated three obscenity matters involving sexually oriented books and magazines distributed through ordinary commercial channels.
- In New York, a Times Square newsstand clerk sold two paperback sex novels to a plainclothes officer and was convicted under a state obscenity law.
- In Kentucky, a bookstore/newsstand owner sold two adult magazines after a customer requested them by name and was convicted under a state obscenity statute.
- In Arkansas, state courts in a civil action declared several men’s magazines obscene, enjoined their distribution, and ordered their surrender and destruction.
- Across the records, there was no showing that the publications were sold to minors, targeted at juveniles, or thrust upon unwilling adult viewers.
Issues
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit states to criminally punish or civilly suppress the distribution of sexually explicit books and magazines to consenting adults on the records presented.
- Whether state obscenity actions are constitutionally valid absent proof of a specific juvenile-protection interest, an invasion of unwilling viewers’ privacy, or other special circumstances justifying suppression.
Decision
- The Court, in a per curiam decision, reversed all three judgments.
- It held that, on these records, the distribution of the publications was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from governmental suppression.
- The Court emphasized the absence in each case of: (1) a specific and limited concern for juveniles, (2) obtrusive dissemination that made avoidance by unwilling adults impracticable, or (3) other special circumstances supporting restriction.
- Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Clark, dissented and would have affirmed, favoring greater deference to state obscenity determinations.
Legal Principles
- States may not suppress distribution of sexually oriented publications to adults based solely on general objections to content when the record does not show a constitutionally sufficient justification for restriction.
- Where materials are not shown to be sold to minors and are not imposed on unwilling adult viewers, suppression of their distribution is unconstitutional on the records presented.
- The Court may resolve obscenity disputes by record-based review and summary reversal without restating a comprehensive obscenity test when common constitutional defects are dispositive.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court invalidated criminal convictions and a civil injunction aimed at sexually explicit printed materials because the states did not demonstrate juvenile targeting, forced exposure of unwilling adults, or other circumstances that could justify suppressing adult distribution consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.