beginning its analysis the rule dates back to eighteenth-century England and with the notion that " 'the protection even as to previous was adopted " with remarkable uniformity" by restraint is not absolutely unlimited,'" while recognizing nineteenth- and twentieth-century American courts
How later courts described this case
- beginning its analysis the rule dates back to eighteenth-century England and with the notion that " 'the protection even as to previous was adopted " with remarkable uniformity" by restraint is not absolutely unlimited,'" while recognizing nineteenth- and twentieth-century American courts
- holding that a content-based injunction prohibiting the distribution of existing (but not future) obscene booklets was not a prior restraint
- stating that prior restraints must “be closely confined so as to preclude what may fairly be deemed licensing or censorship”
- beginning its analysis with the notion that “‘the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited,’” while recognizing that “the limitation [on such protection] is the exception” (quoting Near, 283 U.S. at 716)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
dissenting.
My views on the right of a State to protect its people against the purveyance of obscenity were expressed in Alberts v. California, post, p. 476, also decided today. Here we have an entirely different situation.
This is not a criminal obscenity case. Nor is it a case ordering the destruction of materials disseminated by a person who has been convicted of an offense for doing so, as would be authorized under provisions in the laws of New York and other States. It is a case wherein the New York police, under a different state statute, located books which, in their opinion, were unfit for public use because of obscenity and then obtained a court order for their condemnation and destruction.
The majority opinion sanctions this proceeding. I would not. Unlike the criminal cases decided today, this New York law places the book on trial. There is totally *446 lacking any standard in the statute for judging the book in context. The personal element basic to the criminal laws is entirely absent. In my judgment, the same object .may have wholly different impact depending upon the setting in which it is placed. Under this statute, the setting is irrelevant.
It is the manner of use that should determine obscenity. It is the conduct of the individual that should be judged, not the quality of art or literature. To do otherwise is to impose a prior restraint and hence to violate the Constitution. Certainly in the absence of a prior judicial determination of illegal use, books, pictures and other objects of expression should not be destroyed. It savors too much of book burning.
I would reverse.