documentNotwithstanding the judge’s ruling that the film was not obsceneHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
the District Attorney decided to arrest Stork and Hagen. The Deep Throat case was so important to Droney that he pulled one state detective off a murder investigation to watch the film and make the arrest.
documentWhether you folks like it or notHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
you are part of a rather important political event…I am not here to either encourage or discourage the students who decided to see this film…Were I not involved in this lawsuit
documentWhen I arrived at Quincy House shortly before eight o’clockHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
a circus atmosphere prevailed. Hundreds of pickets marched outside urging potential viewers to stay away. There was some pushing and shoving. Slogans were shouted: “Freedom of the Press is not Freedom to Molest.” “Pornography is an inciteme...
documentAfter about forty minutes Judge Alberti abruptly stopped the videotape and summoned us back into court. “I’ve seen enoughHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
” he declared with a disgusted look on his face. Then
documentI was preserving an important point for any jury trial that the students might have in the future. I would tell the jurors that I had never seen Deep Throat because I had chosen not toHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
and that they had never seen Deep Throat because they had chosen not to. I would argue that the right to choose not to see a film is just as important as the right to choose to see a film. Indeed
documentAfter some legal argumentHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
Judge Alberti declared that he was ready to see Deep Throat to decide whether it was obscene. I argued that the judge need not view the film: no matter what its content
documentOnly hours before the scheduled performanceHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
Carl Stork and Nathan J. Hagen—the co-presidents of the Quincy House Film Society—received telephone calls from the D.A.’s office directing them to be in Judge Charles R. Alberti’s courtroom at two o’clock for a hearing. Stork and Hagen tri...
documentIf there is anything more obnoxious to a civil libertarian than the punishment of speech after it has taken placeHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
it is the issuance of a prior injunction to prevent speech in the first place. Prior restraint—as an injunction against speech has come to be known—is the purest form of censorship. It seeks to prevent the speech from ever reaching the publ...
documentThe local District Attorney was an elderly political hack named John DroneyHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
who had repeatedly won reelection on an uncompromising law-and-order platform. When he learned that the twin evils of obscenity and Harvard might merge on that fateful night
documentThe feminists seemed to be making their point quite effectively: more students were expected on the picket lines and at the slide show than at the movie itself. Many in the Harvard communityHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
while supporting the right of the Quincy House Film Society to show Deep Throat
documentSome radical feminists went beyond boycottsHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
shooting bullets through a bookstore window in Harvard Square to protest its sale of Playboy Magazine. Some theaters showing Deep Throat received threats of violence
documentThe dispute between civil libertarians and feminists had split the ranks of some liberalsHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
and the issue was achieving some notoriety in the media. I had
document“Take what [some of these] women are now doing and ask yourself the question. Would you favor it if their objection were to books about atheism or communism instead of pornography? If you would say noHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
then it seems to me that you can’t be in favor of a boycott against stores that sell Playboy and Penthouse
documentAlthough boycotts are themselves protected by the constitutional right of free expressionHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
civil libertarians are appropriately concerned about the effect of overly broad boycotts
documentThe organization through which Gloria Steinem spoke—Women Against Pornography—advocated boycotts as its primary weapons in the war on porn. The boycotts were directed not only against theaters and bookstoresHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
but against lawyers who represented them on First Amendment grounds. When I and several friends opened a Kosher deli in Harvard Square
documentWhether true or falseHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
Lovelace’s account struck a responsive chord among many feminists. Gloria Steinem’s article presented a sympathetic portrait of Lovelace as the victim of everything the “sleazy pornocrats” had come to represent. Using Lovelace’s Ordeal as a...
documentI told Harry that Lovelace had written that when “she saw how upset Chuck wasHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
[she] decided [she] would pretend to enjoy it with Harry.” I asked whether it was possible that she was only acting.
