Film Follies, Inc. v. Harl Haas, Etc.
Headline: Ruling dismisses challenge to Oregon’s broad obscenity law, leaving state enforcement in place while a dissent argued the statute unlawfully restricts sexually oriented materials absent harm to minors or unconsenting adults.
Holding:
- Leaves Oregon's obscenity law enforceable against distributors of sexual material.
- Creates risk of prosecutions for consensual adult sexual content and bestiality depictions.
- Dissent urged remand for local community-standards hearing and chance to introduce evidence.
Summary
Background
A film company sued Oregon officials in Multnomah County court. It challenged Oregon Laws 1973, c. 699, §4 and Oregon Revised Statute §167.060(10). The company asked the court to declare the statutes unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop enforcement. The state courts dismissed the suit, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial federal question.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Oregon’s statutes unlawfully ban sexually oriented materials. The statutes make it a crime to distribute "obscene" visual material and define obscenity to include depictions of sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct, works appealing to prurient interest, and lacking serious value. The statutes define sexual conduct broadly, including masturbation, intercourse, touching genitals, pubic areas, buttocks, or female breasts, and even sex involving animals. The Court issued only a dismissal; it gave no majority opinion explaining why.
Real world impact
Because the appeal was dismissed, the Oregon laws remain enforceable as written. That outcome allows state authorities to continue applying the broad definitions to materials that depict the acts listed in the statute. The opinion does not resolve whether community standards were used at trial, and the dismissal does not decide the broader constitutional questions on the merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented. He said the statutes are facially overbroad and would have taken the case, reversed the lower judgment, and remanded for a new hearing to consider local community standards and allow relevant evidence.
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?