Smith v. California

Background

A bookstore owner in Los Angeles was convicted under a city ordinance that made it a crime to have any obscene or indecent book for sale in a place of business. The municipal court and the California appellate department affirmed the conviction even though the ordinance contained no requirement that the seller know the book's contents, imposing strict criminal liability. The bookseller objected, arguing the law violated the Constitution, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a city may punish a bookseller for possessing an obscene work without proving the seller knew of its obscene character. The Court reversed, explaining that while states may prohibit obscene materials, dispensing with any mental element would encourage booksellers to inspect or remove works to avoid criminal risk and thus chill distribution of protected literature. The opinion relied on earlier decisions that protected speech and warned against statutes that produce self-censorship and overly broad or vague applications.

Real world impact

The decision protects booksellers and the public's access to non-obscene books by preventing strict liability prosecutions that could force self-censorship. The Court did not decide what specific level of knowledge is required, whether honest mistake is a defense, or whether the book itself was non-obscene; those issues remain open for future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices agreed in result but differed on reasons: one urged a broader First Amendment protection, others urged clearer rules about required proof and complained about excluded evidence and the record's limitations.