We categorically disapprove the theory...that obscene, pornographic films acquire
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
4.2.12
WC: 191694
We categorically disapprove the theory...that obscene, pornographic films acquire
constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they are exhibited for
consenting adults only... The States have a long-recognized legitimate interest in the
quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city
centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself.
But as I promised Judge Aldrich, I continued to press my principle in the court of public opinion
and in a series of other obscenity cases over the next several decades. Ultimately my view would
prevail, if not in law then certainly in practice, as we shall see. Chief Justice Burger may have
won in the courthouse, but we won in theaters and on television sets throughout the nation, as
sexually explicit films—far more explicit than J Am Curious Yellow—became pervasive and
“legal” in fact if not in law. This disparity between the law, as set down in theory by the Supreme
Court, and the law, as implemented in practice throughout the country, is an interesting story in
itself.
105
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017192
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents