criticizing the Supreme Court’s decisions affirming the constitutionality of an obscenity statute as overlooking a variety of historical, sociological, and psychological grounds for calling the constitutionality of the statute into question
How later courts described this case
- criticizing the Supreme Court’s decisions affirming the constitutionality of an obscenity statute as overlooking a variety of historical, sociological, and psychological grounds for calling the constitutionality of the statute into question
- describing “dogma of ‘Victorian morality’ ” that demanded “ ‘decency’ in published words”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur with my colleagues in affirming the judgment below. I would dispose in one sentence of the claim advanced that the applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1461 , is unconstitutional, for I believe the constitutionality of such legislation is so well settled that: “If the question is to be reopened the Supreme Court must open it. Tyomies Publishing Company v. United States, 6 Cir., 211 F. 385” — quoting Learned .Hand, C. J., in United States v. Rebhuhn, 2 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 512 , at page 514, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 629 , 60 S.Ct. 976 , 84 L.Ed. 1399 . I concur with Chief Judge Clark in his disposition of the remaining issues.