SUNSHINE BOOK CO. ET AL.

v.

SUMMERFIELD, POSTMASTER GENERAL

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Felton v. The City OF Pensacola, 200 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
  …the consideration of the sordid business of pandering, as discussed in the Ginzburg case, supra. Nevertheless, we concur in what appears to be the generally prevailing view that nudity alone is not obscene. See Sunshine Book Company v. Summerfield, 355 U.S. 372, 78 S.Ct. 365, 2 L.Ed.2d 352 (1958). That does not mean, of course, that nudity may not become obscene by its manner of presentation and by “pandering.” We fully realize the great difficulty faced by a judge or some other person, who may be charged…
• N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
  …acter which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.” Penne-kamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 335; see also One, Inc., v. Olesen, 355 U. S. 371; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372. We must “make an independent examination of the whole record,” Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235, so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.26 Applying these s…
• Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1984)
  …aracter which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.’ Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 335; see also One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U. S. 371; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372. We must ‘make an independent examination of the whole record,’ Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235, so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden instrusion on the field of free expression.” 376 U. S., at 285…

Authorities Cited

• Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1957)