# Moore v. State

> Court of Appeals of Texas · July 28, 1971 · 470 S.W.2d 391

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761221

## Case

- **Full name:** Norman G. MOORE Et Al., Appellants, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** July 28, 1971
- **Citations:** 470 S.W.2d 391
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barrow
- **Judges:** Barrow, Cadena, Klingeman
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9761221

## Opinion text

*406 BARROW, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I fully join in the opinion written by Justice Klingeman holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction enjoining the sale of certain specified magazines, books, films and items. The proceedings were brought pursuant to Article 527, Tex.Pen.Code Ann., as revised in 1969, and this statute has been held to be constitutional.
In view of the quotes by Justice Cadena in his dissenting opinion from prior opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, including several from dissenting opinions of said Court, I think it well to point out that in United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 , 91 S.Ct. 1410 , 28 L.Ed.2d 813 , which opinion was delivered on May 3, 1971, six justices upheld the constitutionality of a statute which prohibited the distribution of obscene materials to willing adult recipients. It was there said: “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press” and there is no “constitutional right in people like Reidel to distribute or sell obscene materials.”
Thus, it is seen that the temporary injunction was issued under authority of a constitutional law. Furthermore, the record fully supports the trial court’s findings that the enjoined exhibits are obscene materials as defined by this law. The trial court expressly found that such exhibits exemplify and are hard-core pornography. These materials are accurately described in the majority opinion, and if such exhibits are not hard-core pornography, then there is no such thing. It is inconceivable that such materials could be passed off by a court as “the chuckle of the genius.”
It is true that there is much confusion in this field, not only among the opinions of various courts and the individual judges thereof, but also among the psychologists and sociologists who have considered this issue. Many urge that adults should have complete freedom to produce, deal in, possess, and consume whatever communicative materials may appeal to them. However, as was recently said by the majority of the Court in Reidel , this is a legislative decision and the task of restructuring the obscenity laws lies with those who pass, repeal, and amend statutes and ordinances.
The Texas Legislature in 1969, enacted Article 527, supra, and the record before us fully supports the temporary injunction of the trial court issued under this statute. I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court as reformed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761221. Public record. Not legal advice.