# Commonwealth v. Robin

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 22, 1966 · 421 Pa. 70

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695573

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Robin, Appellant; Commonwealth v. Grove Press, Inc., Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 22, 1966
- **Citations:** 421 Pa. 70; 218 A.2d 546; 1966 Pa. LEXIS 622
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695573

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where United States Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of a state statute governing obscenity, that ruling is binding on state courts

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Grove Press v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 577 , 84 S. Ct. 1909 (1964) (per cüriam), has made clear that the sale or distribution of the “Tropic of Cancer” may not be absolutely proscribed. We are bound by that decision.
However, I do not view the decision in Grove Press v. Gerstein or the decision of this Court today to preclude governmental action designed to shield our juvenile population from the potentially adverse effect of *73 premature exposure to the “Tropic of Cancer” or like material.
Carefully drawn restrictions on the sale or distribution of such material to juveniles would in no way embody a novel approach. Courts have traditionally sanctioned policies which seek to accord special protection and treatment to our youth in such areas as the sale of intoxicating beverages, cigarettes and firearms; the operation and ownership of motor vehicles; the trial of juvenile offenders; and in many matters relating to their health, welfare, education and employment.
I share the concern of those who seek to protect our juvenile population and am of the view that such a policy in this area would have socially beneficial results. Neither the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States nor the decisions of this Court prohibit governmental action which, while not inhibiting the right of adults to exercise their First Amendment privilege, insulates juveniles from material such as the “Tropic of Cancer”, which they may lack the emotional maturity and judgment to place in proper perspective.
Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice O’Brien join in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695573. Public record. Not legal advice.