Blank v. California

1974-10-21

Headline: Court declines to review a California conviction for showing an allegedly obscene film, leaving the lower-court guilty verdict in place while some Justices call the state obscenity law overly broad.

Holding: The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, so the Supreme Court declined to review the California obscenity conviction and left the lower-court judgment intact.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the exhibitor's guilty verdict intact while state law remains unreviewed.
Three Justices view the California obscenity statute as constitutionally overbroad and would reverse.
Dissenters urge remand for a new trial applying local community standards.

Topics: obscenity law, film censorship, free speech, community standards, state criminal enforcement

Summary

Background

A person was convicted in Los Angeles for exhibiting an allegedly obscene motion picture under California Penal Code §311.2(a), which defines "obscene matter" by community standards. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court held the case pending this Court’s related decisions, then affirmed the conviction. The State court’s judgment stood and the Supreme Court denied the request to review the case.

Reasoning

The central question raised was whether the State may criminally suppress sexually oriented material under its obscenity law. The Court as a whole did not decide that question because it declined to hear the case. Three Justices (Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall) dissented, arguing the statute is constitutionally overbroad and that, except for distribution to children or exposure to unwilling adults, such materials cannot be wholly suppressed. Justice Douglas also would have granted review and reversed.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to review the case, the lower-court conviction remains in effect and the constitutional challenge to the California law was not resolved by this Court. The dissenting Justices said the law is invalid and would have reversed or sent the case back for further fact-finding under local community standards. This denial is not a final national ruling on obscenity law and leaves open the possibility of future review.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissenters urged that the statute be struck down for being overbroad and that the defendant should be allowed a new determination under local community standards; one Justice would summarily reverse on constitutional grounds.