CAIN ET AL.
v.
KENTUCKY
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
dissenting.
In my view we should not inflexibly deny to each of the States the power to adopt and enforce its own standards as to obscenity and pornographic materials; States ought to be free to deal with varying conditions and problems in this area. I am unwilling to say that Kentucky is without power to bar public showing of this film; therefore, I would affirm the judgment from which the appeal is taken.
Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
If this case involved obscenity regulation by the Federal Government, I would unhesitatingly reverse the conviction, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496 (1957). Even in light of the much greater flexibility that I have always thought should be accorded to the States in this field, see, e. g., my dissenting opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 203 (1964), suppression of this particular film presents a borderline question. However, laying aside my own personal estimate of the film, I cannot say that Kentucky has exceeded the constitutional speed limit in banning public showing of the film within its borders, and accordingly I vote to affirm the judgment below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1973)…erable in Las Vegas, or New York City.13 [*33] See Hoyt v. Minnesota, 399 U. S. 524-525 (1970) (Black-MUN, J., dissenting); Walker v. Ohio, 398 U. S. 434 (1970) (Burgee, C. J., dissenting); id., at 434-435 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U. S. 319 (1970) (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 319-320 (Harlan, J., dissenting); United States v. Groner, 479 F. 2d, at 581-583; O’Meara & Shaffer, Obscenity in The Supreme Court: A Note on Jacobellis v. Ohio, 40 Notre Dame Law. 1, 6-7 (1964). See al…
-
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1973)…irty Books, 75 Yale L. J. 1364 (1966). On the question of community standards see also Hoyt v. Minnesota, 399 U. S. 524 (1970) (BlacicmuN, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Harlan, J., dissenting) (flexibility for state standards); Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U. S. 319 (1970) (Burger, C. J., dissenting) (same); Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U. S. 478, 488 (1962) (Harlan, J., joined by Stewart, J.) (national standards in context of federal prosecution). No fewer than 31 cases have been disposed of in this fashion…
-
Huffman v. United States, 470 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1971)…reversing 200 So. 2d 842 (Fla.App.1967); Henry v. Louisiana, 392 U.S. 655, 88 S.Ct. 2274, 20 L.Ed.2d 1343 (1968), reversing 250 La. 682, 198 So. 2d 889 (1967); Carlos v. New York, 396 U.S. 119, 90 S.Ct. 395, 24 L.Ed.2d 303 (1969); Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U.S. 319, 90 S.Ct. 1110, 25 L.Ed.2d 334 (1970), reversing 437 S.W. 2d 769 (Ky.1969); Bloss v. Dykema, 398 U.S. 278, 90 S.Ct. 1727, 26 L.Ed.2d 230 (1970), reversing 17 Mich.App. 318, 169 N.W. 2d 367 (1969); Walker v. Ohio, 398 U.S. 434, 90 S.Ct. 1884, 26 L.Ed…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1957)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1964)
- Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1967)