Herman Et Al. v. Arkansas
Headline: Court declines to review Arkansas obscenity convictions, leaving film exhibition convictions standing while a dissent says the state law is overly broad and may violate free-speech protections.
Holding: The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, leaving the Arkansas obscenity convictions intact while three Justices dissented that the state statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.
- Leaves Arkansas obscenity convictions in place while Supreme Court declines review.
- Keeps open whether states can fully ban sexually oriented films.
- Could lead to new trials if local community standards were not applied.
Summary
Background
Three men were convicted in Pulaski County, Arkansas, for showing an allegedly obscene film under a state statute that makes it unlawful to exhibit "any obscene film." The law defines "obscene" by asking whether the material, to the average person using contemporary community standards, appeals to prurient interest. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in 512 S.W.2d 923 (1974), and the defendants asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court denied review, so the state-court judgment stands for now. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented. He argued the Arkansas statute — by adopting the quoted definition of "obscene" — is unconstitutionally overbroad. Citing his earlier dissents in cases such as Paris Adult Theatre I and Miller v. California, he said government may not wholly suppress sexually oriented material except in cases of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unwilling adults. Brennan said he would have granted review and reversed because the state law fails that test. He also relied on his view from Hamling that defendants must be allowed to show whether local community standards were actually applied.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused review, the Arkansas convictions remain in place and the broader constitutional question is unresolved. The decision does not create a nationwide rule about similar state laws. Brennan’s opinion highlights that people who show films, theaters, and viewers could be affected if states are allowed to ban sexually oriented materials broadly. He also suggested courts should determine whether trials used local community standards and possibly order new trials if they did not.
Dissents or concurrances
Brennan’s dissent would vacate the judgment and remand for possible new trials under local community standards, showing a clear split on how far states may suppress sexually oriented materials.
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?