A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts

1966-03-21

Headline: Court overturns Massachusetts ruling that Fanny Hill is obscene, holding books cannot be banned if they retain any redeeming social value and requiring proof of no value or exploitative publishing to justify suppression.

Holding: The Court ruled that a book cannot be declared obscene and suppressed unless it is found utterly without redeeming social value, and that evidence of commercial exploitation or pandering may be considered.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder to suppress books that have any redeeming social value.
Allows courts to consider commercial exploitation or pandering when judging obscenity.
A state obscenity decree can be used in later criminal prosecutions and suppress distribution.

Topics: obscenity law, book banning, freedom of expression, publisher advertising

Summary

Background

The Attorney General of Massachusetts sued to have the book Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (commonly called Fanny Hill) declared obscene under a state statute that allowed a civil proceeding against the book itself. The state trial court admitted the book, expert testimony, and reviews, found it obscene, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The book’s publisher, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, intervened but did not demand a jury trial.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the book met the three-part obscenity test the Court had described in earlier cases: (1) prurient appeal, (2) patent offensiveness, and (3) utter lack of redeeming social value. The Court assumed the first two elements might be met but found the state court misapplied the third. The Court said social value must be judged independently and cannot be canceled out by sexual appeal or offensiveness. The Court also said evidence about how the book was produced, marketed, or sold — showing commercial exploitation or pandering — can be relevant to show no redeeming value.

Real world impact

As applied here, the Court reversed the state decree because the record included expert testimony that the book had at least minimal literary or historical value and the in‑rem proceeding judged the book in the abstract. The decision makes it harder for states to suppress books that retain any redeeming social importance, though a later showing of exploitative marketing or pandering could change the outcome.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas wrote a concurrence emphasizing broader First Amendment protection and reliance on expert judgment about value. Several Justices dissented, arguing for different tests or more deference to state judgments.