holding, based on Paris Adult Theatre I and Roth, that it is "appropriate for the State to act to protect the 'social interest in order and morality' or 'decency' ”
How later courts described this case
- holding, based on Paris Adult Theatre I and Roth, that it is "appropriate for the State to act to protect the 'social interest in order and morality' or 'decency' ”
- holding, based on Paris Adult Theatre I and Roth, that it is Aappropriate for the State to act to protect the >social interest in order and morality= or >decency=@
- statute criminalizing promotion of and possession with intent to promote obscene devices upheld as legitimate exercise of state police power, justified under rationale of protecting the societal interest in order and morality
- statute does not violate right of privacy
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*274 MILLER, Judge,
dissenting.
Perhaps Mr. Justice Brennan has already said it all:
“Although there is a remote possibility that a given state court will be the first to discover a latent constitutional issue and to order redress if the issue is properly raised, it is far more likely that the court will fail to appreciate the claim and reject it out of hand.”
Mr. Justice Brennan in Reed v. Ross, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984).
I dissent.