The text of this article is only available as a PDF.

[Footnotes]

1 Doctrine and Covenants 121:45.
2 Doctrine and Covenants 88:74; 112:28, 33.
3 Alma 39:5.
4 Doctrine and Covenants 42:23; 63:16; 3 Nephi 12:27-29.
5 General Conference Reports, April 4, 1965, p. 8.
6 First Presidency, Feb. 1966, quoted infra.
infra,
7 infra, notes 10-18.
8 Moroni 7:10 ("A man being evil cannot do that which is good");
Alma 29:4-5, 41:3-6 (God grants unto men according to the desires of their hearts);
Prov. 23:7 ("As he thinketh in his heart, so is he").
Milton R. Hunter, member of First Council of Seventy: "The key to every man is his thoughts. Therefore, thought and character are one." General Conference Reports, October 4, 1946, p. 42.
9 Deserei News, "Church News Section," Feb. 26, 1966, p. 3.
10 Magrath, "The Obscenity Cases: Grapes of Roth," 1966 Supreme Court Rev. 7, 48-55;
Cairns, Paul, and Wishner, "Sex Censorship: The Assumptions of Anti-Obscenity Laws and the Empirical Evidence," 46 Minn. L. Rev. 1009, 1034 (1962);
Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, and Christenson, "Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types," 678 (1965);
Gerber, "Sex, Pornography, and Justice," pp. 317-19 (1965);
Lockhart and McClure, "Literature, the Law of Obscenity, and the Constitution," 38 Minn. L. Rev. 295, 382-87 (1954);
Alpert, "Judicial Censorship and the Press," 52 Harv. L. Rev. 40 (1938).
11 rmstrong, "The Damning Case Against Pornography," Reader’s Digest (Dec. 1965);
Armstrong, "Filth For Profit: The Big Business of Pornography," Reader’s Digest (March 1966).
Roberts, The Smut Rakers (National Observer Newsbook, 1966).
12 Armstrong, supra note 11,
"Editorial," Deserei News, Feb. 26, 1966.
13 Lockhart and McClure, "Literature, the Law of Obscenity, and the Constitution," 38 Minn. L. Rev. 295, 385-86 (1954),
Alpert, "Judicial Censorship and the Press," 52 Harv. L. Rev. 40, 72 (1938),
14 Lockhart and McClure, op. cit., supra note 13, at 385.
Dr. Jahoda, quoted by Frank, J., in United States v. Roth, 237 F. 2d 796, 815 (1956): "Juvenile delinquents as a group read less, and less easily, than non-delinquents."
15 Alpert, op. cit. supra note 13, at 74.
United States v. Dennett, 39 F.2d 564, 568 (2d Cir. 1930).
16 Novick, Integrating the Delinquent and His Community," 20 Fed. Probation 38, 40 (1956).
17 Glueck and Glueck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (1950);
Glueck and Glueck, Predicting Delinquency and Crime (1959);
Bandura and Walters, Adolescent Aggression: A Study of the Influence of Child-Training Practices and Family Interrelationships (1959).
18 Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent (1954).
Dr. Wertham’s findings, however, are challenged in the later Jahoda Report, supra note 14;
Dr. Wertham specifically says (p. 298)
19 Compare Doctrine and Covenants 121:40 et seq.
20 Watson, "Some Effects of Censorship Upon Society," in 5 Social Meaning of Legal Concepts 73, 83-85 (1963).
Judge Curtis Bok, in Commonwealth v. Gordon, 66 Pa. Dist. & Co. Rep. 101 (1949).
21 Loc. cit., supra note 9.
22 Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-80.
23 Brandeis, J., in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964);
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925);
Dejonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
24 Holmes, J., in Scheck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).
25 Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966) (peaceful civil rights demonstration to desegregate public library);
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) (orderly civil rights demonstration on public streets);
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) (peaceful civil rights demonstration on state capitol grounds);
Taylor v. Louisiana, 370 U.S. 154 (1962) (peaceful "sit-in" demonstration in waiting room of bus depot).
26 Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) (threat of immediate mob violence);
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) (threat of communist conspiracy).
27 Adderly v. Florida, 87 Sup. Ct. 242 (1966) (trespass conviction of civil rights demonstrators);
Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949) (sustaining ordinance banning use of sound-trucks);
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941) (sustaining parade license requirement).
28 Douglas, J., concurring, in A Book Named "John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966):
29 Henkin, "Morals and the Constitution," 63 Colum. L. Rev. 391 (1963).
30 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957);
Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966);
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966).
31 Roth v. United States, supra note 30, at 484.
32 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942), quoted with approval in Roth v. United States, supra note 30, at 485.
33 Roth v. United States, supra note 30 at 485.
34 Lockhart and McClure, "Obscenity Censorship: The Core Constitutional Issue -What is Obscene?" 7 Utah L. Rev. 289 (1961).
Semonche, "Definition and Contextual Obscenity: The Supreme Court’s New and Disturbing Accommodation," 13 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1173 (1966).
Kaplan, "Obscenity as an Esthetic Category," 20 Law Sc Contemp. Prob. 544 (1955).
35 Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965);
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931);
Emerson, "The Doctrine of Prior Restraint," 20 Law & Contemp. Prob. 648 (1955).
36 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 487 (1957).
37 Deserei News, March 18, 1966;
Salt Lake Tribune, March 19, 1966.
38 Ibid.
39 Mr. Justice Stewart in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 499 n.3 (1966);
Lockhart and McClure, "Censorship of Obscenity: The Developing Constitutional Standards," 45 Minn. L. Rev. 5, 63-64 (1961);
Murphy, "The Value of Pornography," 10 Wayne L. Rev. 655, 668 (1964).
40 Provo experience, supra note 37.
41 F. C. Crews, The Pooh Perplex (1965).
42 A Book Named "John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966).
43 Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966).
44 Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966).
45 Mishkin v. New York, supra note 43, at 511,
46 Supra note 36, decided June 24, 1957.
47 See Magrath, "The Obscenity Cases: Grapes of Roth," 1966 Supreme Court Rev. 7;
Note, "Obscenity and the Supreme Court: Nine Years of Confusion," 19 Stan. L. Rev. 167 (1966);
Comment, "More Ado About Dirty Books," 75 Yale L. J. 1364 (1966).
Gellhorn, Individual Freedom and Governmental Restraints, 55 (1956);
Lockhart and McClure, op. cit., supra note 34.
48 Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 360 U.S. 684 (1959).
49 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
50 Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965) (motion picture censorship)
Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436 (1957) (book censorship).
51 Block and Geis, Man, Crime, and Society, 456 et seq. (1962);
Reckless, The Crime Problem, 388-409, 429-50 (3d ed. 1961);
Tappan, Crime, Justice and Society, 309-311 (1960).
Hare, "The Ambivalent Public and Crime," 9 Crime and Delinq. 145 (1963).
52 Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380 (1957) (unanimous decision).
53 Ernst and Seagle, To The Pure, 277 (1928);
Chafee, Free Speech in the United States, 314-15, 543 (1941);
Mill, On Liberty, 271 (Great Books of the Western World ed., 1952).
St. John-Stevas, Obscenity and the Law, 221-256 (1956).
54 Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra note 49, at 195.
Bookcase, Inc. v. Broderick, 18 N.Y. 2d 71, 218 N.E. 2d 668 (1966), appeal dismissed sub. nom. Bookcase, Inc. v. Leary, 87 Sup. Ct. 81 (1966);
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft No. 6, sec. 207.10, subd. 2 (1957);
Note, "For Adults Only: The Constitutionality of Government Film Censorship by Age Classification," 69 Yale L. J. 141 (1959).
note 55, infra.
55 Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963),
Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948),
Note, "The New York Law Controlling the Dissemination of Obscene Materials to Minors," 34 Ford. L. Rev. 692 (1966);
Comment, "Regulation of Comic Books," 68 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1955).
56 Gerber, "A Suggested Solution to the Riddle of Obscenity," 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 834, 843 (1964) (charge by Congressman Clare Hoffman that the Supreme Court is part of a world-wide conspiracy to subvert personal moral standards);
Semonche, "Definitional and Contextual Obscenity: The Supreme Court’s New and Disturbing Accommodation," 13 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1173 (1966) (charge by Cardinal Spellman that the Supreme Court had accepted degeneracy and the beatnik mentality as the standard of American life).

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview