Jacobellis v. Ohio
378 U.S. 184 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining whether material is obscene, the constitutional standard to be applied is a national standard of decency, not varying local community standards. Furthermore, for material to be proscribed as obscene, it must be utterly without redeeming social importance.
Facts:
- Nico Jacobellis was the manager of a motion picture theater in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
- Jacobellis exhibited a French film titled 'Les Amants' ('The Lovers').
- The film's plot concerns a woman who, bored with her life and marriage, abandons her husband and family for a young archaeologist.
- The state's objection to the film and the basis for the obscenity charge was an explicit love scene in the final reel of the movie.
- The film had received favorable reviews in several national publications and was shown in approximately 100 large cities across the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Nico Jacobellis was prosecuted by the State of Ohio and convicted on two counts of possessing and exhibiting an obscene film in an Ohio trial court, following a trial by a three-judge panel.
- Jacobellis, the appellant, appealed his conviction to an intermediate appellate court in Ohio, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Jacobellis then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, which also affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear Jacobellis's appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's criminal conviction of a motion picture theater manager for possessing and exhibiting an allegedly obscene film violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments if the determination of obscenity is based on local community standards?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the conviction violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the film is not obscene under the proper constitutional standard. The Court must make an independent constitutional judgment in obscenity cases. This judgment requires applying the standard established in Roth v. United States: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. This standard has two crucial clarifications: first, 'contemporary community standards' must be a uniform national standard, not a patchwork of local ones, to prevent the most restrictive community from setting the bar for the entire nation. Second, material cannot be deemed obscene unless it is 'utterly without redeeming social importance,' meaning that any artistic, literary, scientific, or other social value protects it under the First Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Black
Yes. The conviction should be reversed because any conviction for exhibiting a motion picture abridges the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Constitution does not permit any form of censorship, and the Court should not act as a 'Supreme Board of Censors.'
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes. Criminal laws regarding obscenity are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. While difficult to define precisely, the justice stated, 'I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.'
Concurring - Justice Goldberg
Yes. The conviction should be reversed because the film is not obscene. The allegedly objectionable love scene is 'so fragmentary and fleeting' that it is hardly noticeable. The film as a whole is a serious exploration of an unhappy marriage and is protected expression under the First Amendment.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Warren
No. The conviction does not violate the Constitution. The 'community standards' referenced in the Roth test should refer to local community standards, not a vague and undefinable 'national standard.' Communities across the nation are diverse and should be allowed to set their own standards of decency. The Supreme Court should not act as a 'Super Censor' by re-evaluating the facts of every obscenity case, but should instead affirm the lower courts' findings if there is sufficient evidence, which there was in this case.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No. The conviction should be affirmed. States should be permitted greater latitude than the Federal Government in regulating obscenity. The proper test for state action should be one of rationality, and states should be allowed to ban material that has been reasonably found in judicial proceedings to be fundamentally offensive. Under this standard, Ohio's condemnation of the film was within its permissible constitutional limits.
Analysis:
This plurality opinion significantly altered the constitutional test for obscenity that was established in Roth v. United States. By adding the 'utterly without redeeming social importance' requirement and mandating a 'national standard' for community values, the Court made it substantially more difficult to prosecute obscenity cases. This decision represented a high-water mark for the protection of sexually explicit expression under the First Amendment, a standard that would later be modified and relaxed in Miller v. California (1973). Justice Stewart's famous concurrence, 'I know it when I see it,' has become iconic for highlighting the inherent subjectivity and difficulty of defining obscenity.
Unlock the full brief for Jacobellis v. Ohio