Jacobellis v. Ohio
Headline: Court reverses conviction for showing a French film, rules the movie not obscene and applies a national standard that makes local film bans harder to uphold.
Holding: The Court held that the film "Les Amants" is not obscene under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and reversed the manager’s conviction.
- Protects movie exhibitors from convictions when films are not found obscene nationally.
- Affirms national standard for judging obscenity, limiting local bans.
- Encourages states to target protection of children rather than total suppression.
Summary
Background
A Cleveland Heights movie-theater manager was convicted under an Ohio law for possessing and showing a French film called "Les Amants" ("The Lovers"). The state courts upheld fines and potential jail time after finding the film obscene, largely based on an explicit love scene in the final reel. The case reached the Supreme Court after appeals and reargument.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the film was legally obscene and therefore outside First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. The Court said it must apply the test from earlier decisions: material is obscene only if, taken as a whole, it appeals primarily to prurient interest and is utterly without redeeming social value. The Justices insisted the Court must make its own review, not defer entirely to local judges. After viewing the film and the trial record, the majority concluded the movie was not obscene and reversed the conviction.
Real world impact
The ruling shields exhibitors from criminal conviction when a work has artistic or social value and is not plainly obscene. It reaffirms a national community standard rather than letting each town or county set different constitutional limits. The opinion also notes states may still protect children and suggests narrower laws aimed at preventing child access rather than total suppression of material for adults.
Dissents or concurrances
Some Justices concurred but used different language (one said he "knows it when he sees it"). Dissenting opinions would have given more deference to local judgments or applied a sufficiency-of-evidence review to uphold the state conviction.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?