Every indexed document

how far does Stanley go. Is the decision to be limited to the precise problem of “mere private possession of obscene material

which the prosecutor had argued was “irrelevant” to this case and which

the three judges issued a decision written by Judge Aldrich. He bought my argument totally. He began by accepting my assumption about the nature of the film:

while continuing to press me hard on its implications. At one point Judge Aldrich asked me what I would do if the Supreme Court ruled against my theory. “Will that be the end of the road…?”

I would submit that the Constitution has a clear answer to that. It must permit the film to be shown in a way to minimize your exposure to it and to permit you both fully to see and to avoid being exposed to the contents of the film.

and the state were to try to enjoin that

I would submit that most politicians that get up and make political speeches are doing it for a motive which is not unrelated to that. Yet we don’t probe the motives of Presidents and Vice-presidents and Senators in speaking. Nor should we....

to see the First Amendment used for the sole and obvious purpose of making a profit and for no other purpose.

who is the president of Grove Press…I think he probably has very mixed motives.

advertised in the way that it’s been advertised right from the beginning

the judges would not have to view the film. Judge Aldrich immediately interjected: “Are you trying to bribe us to decide the case so we don’t have to see the film?...I will admit that’s the best bribe I have ever been offered.”

from having something thrust on them in an unwilling manner and also to protect youngsters.

I was reminded of the old Jewish joke about the man with the broken watch who goes into a storefront window and asks the man behind the counter to fix his watch. “I don’t fix watches. I perform circumcisions

some of them quite unusual. If you believe that you would be offended or embarrassed by the showing of such scenes

suggesting that the Stanley decision wasn’t relevant to a movie theater. He told me about his grandmother who “once went to a movie entitled Sur Les Troits de Paris. She thought it was a travelogue. She didn’t after she got there of course…...

” but I argued that there was no real difference between possession and exhibition:

individual decision to go to a movie theater and there to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the company exclusively of voluntary people

I was concerned that he would remember the incident we had when I turned down his invitation to speak at his restricted club

a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute could be brought in front of a three judge district court with the right to appeal its ruling directly to the Supreme Court. The criteria for bringing such a challenge

I decided to argue that it was none of the government’s constitutional business to act as a board of censors—to tell its adult citizens what they could and could not watch in the privacy of a movie theater that was off limits to children an...