Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1,552 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 103 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Frye v. Kansas City Missouri Police Department (ca8, 2004-07-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frye v. Kansas City Missouri Police Department
8th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
The captive-audience exception applies "where the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer . . . to avoid exposure." Id. at 718 (quotations omitted); Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 769 (1967).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Trainor (4×)
Mass. · 1978 · confidence medium
See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 567 (1969); Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 769 (1967); Comment, In Quest of a "Decent Society": Obscenity and the Burger Court, 49 Wash. L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kuhns
Cal. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
(See Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) 408 U.S. 229, 232 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 312, 315-316 , 92 S.Ct. 2245 ]; and Redrup v. New York (1967) 386 U.S. 767, 770-771 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 517-519 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 ] [rehg. den., 388 U.S. 924 ( 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 , 87 S.Ct. 2091 )].) On the other hand, it appears that the distribution of obscene matter cannot be concealed by a scientific veneer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bloom v. Municipal Court (2×)
Cal. · 1976 · confidence medium
(See Redrup v. New York (1967) 386 U.S. 767, 770 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 517-518 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 ].) Miller revised the Memoirs test to require a showing of "serious" literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. ( Miller v. California, supra, 413 U.S. at p. 24 [ 37 L.Ed.2d at p. 431 ].) [6] See, for example, the record of Supreme Court per curiam reversals of obscenity determinations following Roth and Redrup , listed in the Report of the United States President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (Sept. 1970) (hereafter cited as Commission Report) at page 318.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (4×) also: Cited "see"
SCOTUS · 1975 · confidence medium
In short, the screen of a drive-in theater is not "so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it." Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miranda v. Hicks
C.D. Cal. · 1974 · confidence medium
Thus this court can do no more than take note of Justice Brennan’s statement on the dismissal question, and perhaps contrast it with the apparent thrust of Justice Harlan’s dissent in Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 771 (1967) at 772, 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 , in which he seemed to embrace the Bickel view and equate dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted with a dismissal of an appeal for want of a substantial federal question.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. California (6×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
SCOTUS · 1973 · confidence medium
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 567 (1969); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 637-643 (1968); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, supra, at 690 ; Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 (1967); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 195 (1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (2×)
SCOTUS · 1973 · confidence medium
Although we have often pointedly recognized the high importance of the state interest in regulating the exposure of obscene materials to juveniles and unconsenting adults, see Miller v. California, ante, at 18-20; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S., at 567 ; Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 (1967), this Court has never declared these to be the only legitimate state interests permitting regulation of obscene material.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
As observed by the court in Evergreen Review, Inc. v. Cahn (E.D.N.Y. 1964) 230 F.Supp. 498, 504 , ‘It would be illogical and inconsistent to suppose that prior restraints upon distribution of publications would be unconstitutionally tainted under a . . . civil proceeding, yet be free from such taint under a . . . conventional criminal proceeding.’ (See also Redrup v. New York (1967) 386 U.S. 767, 770 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 518 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 ].)” The establishment of probable cause that presumptively protected materials may offend a criminal statute may justify their official sequestration p…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad (2×)
SCOTUS · 1972 · confidence medium
See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 673-677 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 771-772 (Harlan, J., dissenting). [5] Nothing in the 1966 amendments nor their related legislative history even suggests or hints at a design to overrule Moore v. Illinois Central R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Luros (2×)
Cal. · 1971 · confidence medium
Viewing the still maturing minor as not fully capable of exercising a non-coerced, informed, individual choice, Justice Stewart reasoned that in both situations the government was acting to preserve the promise of free choice implicit in the First Amendment. (390 U.S. at p. 649 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 209].) In Redrup v. New York (1967) 386 U.S. 767, 769 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 517 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 ], before listing the various standards of obscenity espoused by the individual justices, the court expressly noted: “In none of the cases was there a claim that the statute in question reflected a specific an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woodruff v. State (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
Although recognizing that “in some instances” proof other than the viewing of the material may be dispensed with, they state that this “evidentiary shortcut” has been permitted “only in dealing with the most flagrant pornography.” I see a distinction with a real difference between their “most flagrant”, which appears to be of their own coinage, and Mr. Justice Stewart’s “easily identifiable” (concurring in Ginzburg v. United States, supra, at 499) or the “clearly identifiable” as used in the opinion of the Court in Redrup , at 770.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kirkpatrick (2×)
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1970 · confidence medium
The extent of this and earlier divergence is indicated in Redrup v. New York ( 386 U. S. 767, 770-771 [1967]): “ Two members of the Court have consistently adhered to the view that a State is utterly without power to suppress, control, or punish the distribution of any writings or pictures upon the ground of the ‘ obscenity ’.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wasserman (2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 US 767, 769 ( 87 S Ct 1414 , 18 L Ed 2d 515 ); Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), 383 US 413, 418 ( 86 S Ct 975 , 16 L Ed 2d 1 ); People v. Billingsley, supra .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bercowitz
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1970 · confidence medium
The Penal Law definition of “ obscenity ” (§ 235.00) closely parallels the United States Supreme Court’s definitions of obscenity (cf. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 770-771 [1967] ; Memoirs [Fanny Hill] v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 418 [1966]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Baranov, United States of America v. Harvey B. Levitt, United States of America v. H. B. Levitt & Associates, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Redrup at 769, 87 S.Ct. 1414.
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Billingsley (4×) also: Cited "see"
Mich. Ct. App. · 1969 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] MCLA § 750.343a (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.575[1]). [2] See Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 US 767, 769 ( 87 S Ct 1414 , 18 L Ed 2d 515 ); Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), 383 US 413, 418 ( 86 S Ct 975 , 16 L Ed 2d 1 ); People v. Zerilli (1968), 14 Mich App 513 . [3] In Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), 378 US 184, 188, 189 ( 84 S Ct 1676 , 12 L Ed 2d 793 ), the United States Supreme Court observed that in areas involving constitutional rights under the due process clause, the Court had "consistently recognized its duty to apply the applicable rules of law upon the basis of an independent rev…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Duggan v. Guild Theatre, Inc.
Pa. · 1969 · confidence medium
We also note that none of the circumstances identified in Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 768 , 87 S. Ct. 1414, 1415 (1967), are present in this case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henley v. Wise
N.D. Ind. · 1969 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court itself has summarized these opinions in its per curiam decision in Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771 , 87 S.Ct. 1414, 1416 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 518 (1967) when it said: Two members of the Court have consistently adhered to the view that a State is utterly without power to suppress, control, or punish the distribution of any writings or pictures upon the ground of their `obscenity'.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henley v. Wise
N.D. Ind. · 1969 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court itself has summarized these opinions in its per curiam decision in Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771 , 87 S.Ct. 1414, 1416 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 518 (1967) when it said: Two members of the Court have consistently adhered to the view that a State is utterly without power to suppress, control, or punish the distribution of any writings or pictures upon the ground of their ‘obscenity’.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Stanley v. Georgia (6×) also: Cited "see"
SCOTUS · 1969 · confidence medium
For example, there is always the danger that obscene material might fall into the hands of children, see Ginsberg v. New York, supra , or that it might intrude upon the sensibilities or privacy of the general public. [10] See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 (1967).
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stabile (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1969 · confidence medium
The People concede that none of these cases involve sales to minors (People v. Tannenbaum, 18 N Y 2d 268 [1966], app. dsmd. 388 U. S. 439 , rehearing den. 389 U. S. 892 ; former Penal Law, § 1141; revised Penal Law, art. 235, see, e.g., §§ 235.20, 235.21; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 [1944]), or pandering, ‘ ‘ which the Court found significant in Ginsburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ” (Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 [1967]), or “ any suggestion of an assault upon indi vidual privacy by publication. in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwill…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Giannini (2×)
Cal. · 1968 · confidence medium
In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) East Village Other, Inc. v. Koota
E.D.N.Y · 1968 · confidence medium
The standard of obscenity adopted in Section 235.00, subdivision 1, is essentially the circumspect standard summed v. in A Book Named John Cleland’s Memoirs, etc. v. Massachusetts, 1966, 383 U.S. 413, 418 , 86 S.Ct. 975 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1 , and Redrup v. New York, 1967, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Baird
N.J. · 1967 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 1, 5-7 (1966)) or suggestive of obtrusiveness, pandering and the like (Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pinkus
Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. · 1967 · confidence medium
(Redrup v. New York (1967) 386 U.S. 767, 771-772 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 518-519 , 87 S.Ct. 1414, 1416-1417 ], Harlan, J., dissenting, joined by Clark, J.; Ginzburg v. United States, supra, 383 U.S. 463, 480-481 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 31, 44 ], Black, J., dissenting; 8 Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, 378 U.S. 184 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 793 , 84 S.Ct. 1676 ].) We bear in mind the factors to be weighed in setting up a scienter standard as pointed out by Justice Frankfurter, concurring in Smith v. California (1959) 361 U.S. 147, at p. 164 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 205, at p. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 215 ] : “ [T]he proof of scienter that is require…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flack v. Municipal Court for the Anaheim-Fullerton Judicial District (2×)
Cal. · 1967 · confidence medium
As observed by the court in Evergreen Review, Inc. v. Cahn (E.D.N.Y. 1964) 230 F.Supp. 498, 504 , "It would he illogical and inconsistent to suppose that prior restraints upon distribution of publications would be unconstitutionally tainted under a . . . civil proceeding, yet be free from such taint under a . . . conventional criminal proceeding.” (See also Redrup v. New York (1967) 386 U.S. 767, 770 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 518 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 ].) Aday, coining as it did prior to Quantity of Books, Stanford, and Freedman , adopted an appropriate statement of the rule to be followed at that time an…
examined Cited "see" Sedelbauer v. State (3×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, (1967) 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 .
examined Cited "see" State v. All Star News Agency, Inc. (3×)
Mo. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 769 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967). (3) that a new definition of obscenity would be adopted.
examined Cited "see" (1974) (3×)
Wis. Att'y Gen. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See *Page 89 Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 515 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. William Groner, D/B/A Lucky Distributors (6×)
5th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 for the Supreme Court's lineup on the test for obscenity 3 Justice Douglas concurred in the reversal in Kois.
cited Cited "see" People v. Penney
Ill. App. Ct. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Chicago v. Kimmel (1964), 31 Ill.2d 202 , 201 N.E.2d 386 .” Defendant argues that the Roth case, supra, has been modified by the decision in Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 U.S. 767 .
discussed Cited "see" Price v. Commonwealth
Va. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gent v. State, 239 Ark. 474 , 393 S.W.2d 219 (1965), rev’d per curiam sub nom Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967) (hereinafter the citation of cases reversed on the inconclusive authority of Redrup will be followed by (Redrup)); State v. Henry, 250 La. 682 , 198 So.2d 889 , rev’d per curiam 392 U.S. 655 (1967) (Redrup); State v. Childs, 252 Or. 91 , 447 P.2d 304 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 931 (1969); Robert Arthur Management Corp. v. State, 220 Tenn. 101, 414 S.W.2d 638 , rev’d per curiam, 389 U.S. 578 (1967) (Redrup).
cited Cited "see" Summerlin v. Sheriff of Huron County
N.D. Ohio · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, supra. It is axiomatic that while this court may adopt the state court findings of fact, it must independently apply federal constitutional standards.
discussed Cited "see" Rabe v. Washington (2×)
SCOTUS · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967). [1] Public displays of explicit materials such as are described in this record are not significantly different from any noxious public nuisance traditionally within the power of the States to regulate and prohibit, and, in my view, involve no significant countervailing First Amendment considerations. [2] That this record shows an offensive nuisance that could properly be prohibited, I have no doubt, but the state statute and charge did not give the notice constitutionally required.
examined Cited "see" Hayes v. Commonwealth (3×)
Ky. Ct. App. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 .
examined Cited "see" Hanby v. State (3×)
Alaska · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967).” 20 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Leo Jacobs (3×)
9th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967); Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 , 86 S.Ct. 942 , 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966); A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U.S. 413 , 86 S.Ct. 975 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966); Roth v. United *934 States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957); United States v. Baranov, 418 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1969); Miller v. United States, 431 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1970).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Frank H. Dellapia (3×)
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967) ; cf. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 , 84 S.Ct. 1676 , 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964) (five separate opinions, one concurrence without opinion). 8 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Lethe (3×)
E.D. Cal. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967) ; Karalexis v. Byrne, 306 F.Supp. 1363 (D.Mass.1969) (three-judge court). 6 .
examined Cited "see" City News Center, Inc. v. Carson (3×)
M.D. Fla. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S. Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967).
examined Cited "see" Karalexis v. Byrne (6×)
D. Mass. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 1967, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771 . 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 . .
discussed Cited "see" Huffman v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 (1966) which points up the varying views of the members of the Court on the question of obscenity. 4 .
examined Cited "see" Engstrom v. Robinson (3×)
S.D. Ala. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 , 88 S.Ct. 1274 , 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968).
examined Cited "see" Wagonheim v. Maryland State Board of Censors (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Md. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 770-71 (1967) (per curiam). [2] In its opinion the majority indicated that "* * * we cannot ignore the visual impact of a motion picture as contrasted with the printed word." Judge Barnes in his concurring opinion seems to suggest that different standards apply to the determination of obscenity in books as opposed to motion pictures.
cited Cited "see" United States v. 77 Cartons of Magazines
N.D. Cal. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, supra, at 770-771 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 .
discussed Cited "see" City of Portland v. Derrington (2×)
Or. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. New York, 386 US 767 , 87 S Ct 1414 , 18 L Ed2d 515 (1967), a per curiam opinion that reveals the existence within the court oí at least four different points of view on the constitutionality of obscenity laws.
examined Cited "see" Fort v. City of Miami (4×)
SCOTUS · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." New York v. Ferber (2×)
SCOTUS · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Home Box Office, Inc. v. Wilkinson (3×)
D. Utah · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 , 87 S.Ct. 1414 , 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 , 78-83 & nn. 4-8, 93 S.Ct. 2628 , 2644-2647 & nn. 4-8, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973) (Brennan, J. dissenting). [9] However obscenity may be defined, a majority of the Supreme Court has permitted significant state regulation, holding hard-core pornography to be beyond the limits of First Amendment protection.
Redrup
v.
New York
3.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 8, 1967.
386 U.S. 767
Sam Bosenwein argued the cause for petitioner in No. 3. With him on the briefs were Stanley Fleishman and Osmond K. Fraenkel. Mr. Fleishman argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner in No. 16. Emanuel Redfield argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants in No. 50., H. Richard Uviller argued the cause for respondent in No. 3. With him on the brief were Frank S. Hogan and Alan F. Scribner. John B. Browning, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for respondent in No. 16. With him on the brief was Robert Matthews, Attorney General. Fletcher Jackson, Assistant Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for appellee in No. 50. With him on the brief were Bruce Bennett, Attorney General, H. Clcy Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack L. Lessenberry., Morris B. Abram and Jay Greenfield filed briefs for the Council for Periodical Distributors Associations, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging reversal in all three cases. Horace S. Manges filed a brief for American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging reversal in No: 50., Charles H. Keating, Jr., and James J. Clancy filed briefs for Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging affirmance in Nos. 3 and 16.
Harlan, Clark.
Cited by 477 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

These three cases arise from a recurring conflict — the conflict between asserted state power to suppress the distribution of books and .magazines through criminal or civil proceedings, and the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

I.

In No. 3, Redrup v. New York, the petitioner was a clerk at. a New York City newsstand. A plainclothes patrolman approached the newsstand, saw two paperback books on a -rack — Lust Pool, and Shame Agent — and asked for them by name. . The petitioner handed him the books and collected the price of $1.65. As a result of this transaction, the petitioner was charged in the New York City Criminal Court with violating a state criminal law.[1] He was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.

In No. 16, Austin v. Kentucky, the petitioner owned and operated á retail bookstore and newsstand in Paducah, Kentucky. A woman resident of Paducah purchased two magazines from a salesgirl in the. petitioner’s store,.after asking for them by name — High Heels, and Spree. As a result of this transaction the petitioner stands convicted[*769] in the Kentucky courts for violating a criminal law of that State.[2]

In No. 50, Gent v. Arkansas, the prosecuting attorney of the Eleventh Judicial District of Arkansas brought a civil proceeding under a state statute,[3] to have certain issues of various magazines declared obscene, to enjoin their distribution and-to obtain a judgment ordering their surrender and destruction. The magazines proceeded against were: Gent, Swank, Bachelor, Modern Man, Cavalcade, Gentleman, Ace, and Sir. The County Chancery Court entered the requested judgment after a trial with an advisory jury, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, with minor modifications.[4]

In none of the cases was there a claim that the statute in question reflected a specific and limited state concern for juveniles. See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158; cf. Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380. In none was there any suggestion of an assault upon individual privacy by publication in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it. Cf. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622; Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451. And in none was there evidence of the sort of “pandering” which the Court found significant in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463.

II.

The Court originally limited review in these cases to certain particularized questions, upon the hypothesis that the material involved in each case was of a character described as “obscene in the constitutional sense” in[*770] Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 418.[5] But we have concluded that the hypothesis upon which the Court originally proceeded was invalid, and accordingly that the cases can and should be decided upon a common and controlling fundamental constitutional basis, without prejudice to the questions upon which review was originally granted. We have concluded, in short, that the distribution of the publications in each of these cases is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from governmental suppression, whether criminal or civil, in personam or in rem.6

Two members of the Court have consistently adhered to the view that a State is utterly without power to suppress, control, or punish the distribution of any writings or pictures upon the ground of their “obscenity.” [7] A third has held to the opinion that a State’s power in this area is narrowly limited to a distinct and clearly identifiable class of material.[8] Others have subscribed to a not dissimilar standard, holding that a State may not constitutionally inhibit the distribution of literary material as obscene unless “(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in’sex; (b).the material is patently offensive because it[*771] affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value/’ emphasizing that the “three elements must coalesce,” and that no such material can “be proscribed unless it i§ found to be utterly without redeeming social value.” Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 418-419. Another Justice has not viewed the “social value” element as an independent factor in the judgment of obscenity. Id., at 460-462 (dissenting opinion).

Whichever of these constitutional views is brought to bear Upon the cases before us, it is clear that the judgments cannot stand. Accordingly, the judgment in each casé is reversed.

T, . , , It is so ordered.

1

N. Y. Pen. Law § 1141 (1).

2

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 436.100. The Kentucky Court of Appeals denied plenary review of the petitioner’s conviction, the Chief Justice dissenting. 386 S. W. 2d 270.

3

Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2713 to 41-2728.

5

Redrup v. New York, 384 U. S. 916; Austin v. Kentucky, 384 U. S. 916; Gent v. Arkansas, 384 U. S. 937.

6

In each cf the cases before us, the contention that the publications involved were basically protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments was timely but unsuccessfully asserted in the state proceedings. In each of these cases, this contention was properly and explicitly presented for review here.

7

See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 476, 482 (dissenting opinions); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 196 (concurring opinion); Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508 (dissenting opinion).

8

See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 499, and n. 3 (dissenting opinion). See also Magrath, The Obscenity Cases: Grapes of Roth, 1966 Supreme Court Review 7, 69-77.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Harlan, whom Mr. Justice Clark joins,

dissenting.

Two of these cases, Redrup v. New York and Austin v. Kentucky, were taken to consider the standards governing the application of the scienter requirement announced in Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, for obscenity prosecutions. There it was held thát a defendant criminally charged with purveying obscene material must be shown to have had some kind of knowledge of the character of such material; the quality of that knowledge, however, was not defined. The third case, Gent v. Arkansas, was taken to consider the validity of a comprehensive Arkansas anti-obscenity statute, in light of the doctrines of “vagueness” and “prior restraint.” The writs of certiorari in Redrup and Austin, and the notation of probable jurisdiction in Gent, were respectively limited to these issues, thus laying aside, for the purposes of these cases, the permissibility of the.state determinations as to the obscenity of the challenged publications. Accordingly, the obscenity vel non of these publications was not dis[*772] cussed in the briefs or oral arguments of any of the parties.

The three cases were argued together at the beginning of this Term. Today, the Court rules that the materials could not constitutionally be adjudged obscene by the States, thus rendering adjudication of the other issues unnecessary. In short, the Court disposes of the cases on the issue that was deliberately excluded from review, and refuses to pass on the questions that brought the cases here.

In my opinion these dispositions do not reflect well on the processes of the Court, and I think the issues for which the cases were taken should be decided. Failing that, I prefer to cast my vote to dismiss the writs in Bédrup and Austin as improvidently granted and, in the circumstances, to dismiss the appeal in Gent for lack of a substantial federal question. I deem it more appropriate to defer an expression of my own views on the questions brought here until an occasion when the Court is prepared to come to grips with such issues.