Enskat v. California

Background

A person was convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for exhibiting an allegedly obscene motion picture under a California law that criminalizes possessing or showing obscene matter. The state law defines obscene material by asking whether it appeals to prurient interest, goes beyond customary candor, and lacks any redeeming social importance. The conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court refused further review.

Reasoning

The central question raised by the dissent is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow a state to broadly suppress sexually oriented materials when there is no distribution to minors or forced exposure of unwilling adults. Justice Brennan, joined by two colleagues, says the Constitution prohibits such wholesale suppression and concludes the California statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. He explains that the petitioner never received the independent judicial review of the disputed materials required by earlier cases because the materials were not sent up to this Court and the Court did not request them, so he would have taken the case and reversed.

Real world impact

If the view in the dissent carries the day, people who show or distribute sexually oriented films could not be prosecuted under laws as broad as California’s without tighter limits. The dissent calls for the judgment to be vacated and the case sent back for proper review of the materials and for consideration of local community standards, which could lead to a new trial or a different outcome. Because the Supreme Court declined review, the conviction stays in place for now and the larger constitutional questions remain unresolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas separately said he would also grant review and reverse, taking the position that any state ban on obscenity is barred by the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.