recognizing that the concept of free speech in the Washington Constitution, which states that “[e]very person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right,” is interpreted more broadly than the federal constitution
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the concept of free speech in the Washington Constitution, which states that “[e]very person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right,” is interpreted more broadly than the federal constitution
- stating that the proper inquiry under Gunwall is whether "on a given subject matter" the Washington constitutional provision should give greater protection than the niinimum protection afforded by the federal constitution
- determining that a magazine depicting nude and scantily clad persons engaged in acts of flagellations, beatings, and torture constituted obscene material within the meaning of the applicable statute
- holding that state constitution does not offer broader protection in the context of obscenity, which was criminalized both immediately before and after ratification of the state constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Andersen, J.
(concurring with majority) — I agree with much of what Justice Utter writes in his dissent concerning the breadth of the state constitution's protection of free speech and press. As the majority opinion explains, however, obscenity has never been protected by either the state or the federal constitutions.