Every indexed document

and 4.5 million had watched bear baiting or the filming of bear baiting. Would that have the slightest relevance in your judgment on whether the showing of bear baiting in Boston

but it isn’t right to kill many more of them in live showings

who I had known when I clerked for Judge Bazelon. Burger and Bazelon were arch enemies

but for my novel approach to offensiveness under the First Amendment. It was a heck of a way to begin my career as a lawyer. The victory would

we think it probable that Roth remains intact only with respect to public distribution in the full sense

or to the public as a result of his exposure. Obscenity may be offensive; it is not per se harmful. Had the Court considered obscenity harmful as such

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