The Obscenity Commission Report - An Editor\u27s Note

In October, 1967 Congress established an advisory commission (1) to study the effect of obscenity upon the public, particularly minors, and its relationship to crime and other antisocial behavior; and, (2) to recommend legislative action necessary to regulate traffic in obscenity without interfering with constitutional rights. During the fall of 1970 the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography issued its report. The Commission majority recommended that legal restriction of obscene books, pictorials, and motion pictures be totally abolished for adults and that the restriction of obscene books be lifted for children. Such a prescription for legal reform was largely based on conclusions the Commission drew from its studies concerning the effects of obscenity

Obscenity and pornography: A historical look at the American Library Association, the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, and the Supreme Court

There was a time when accessing pornographic and obscene materials was much more difficult than it is today. Prosecuted in 1868, Regina v. Hicklin was the first known obscenity case tried under the Obscene Publications Act in Great Britain. The United States Supreme Court first addressed obscenity in the 1957 case of Roth v. United States and grappled with setting standards or creating criteria by which obscenity could be defined. In the 1960s, multiple proposals for federal legislation to crack down on obscenity were offered. The American Library Association (ALA) stepped in to voice its concern and provide professional input in the debate over obscenity. The ALA\u27s central tenets of librarianship are freedom of speech and freedom from censorship. This was evident with the creation of the Library Bill of Rights in 1948 and the Freedom to Read Statement in 1953. To address the various facets of obscenity and pornography in a comprehensive way, Congress enacted legislation that established the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography in 1967. This thesis will explore the political and legal impact of the creation, the duties, and the findings of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. It will examine the final report issued by the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography in September of 1970 and probe the myriad reactions to the Commission\u27s most controversial recommendation: that federal, state, and local legislation prohibiting the sale, exhibition, or distribution of sexual materials to consenting adults should be repealed. Why did this specific recommendation cause such controversy? What impact did it have on later Supreme Court opinions involving obscenity and the First Amendment? What impact did it have on library practices and how did the ALA respond? By examining these issues, this thesis will help to define the effects of obscenity and pornography between the late 1960s and the early 1980s. In addition, this thesis briefly discusses the 1986 Meese Commission and the current definition and regulation of obscenity and pornography

Science, Eros and the Law: A Critique of the Obscenity Commission Report

In the battle over censorship of obscenity, passionate partisanship has never been lacking-on either side of the issue. For decades, ultramoralists and ultra-libertarians have raged at each other, both claiming a monopoly of righteousness or enlightenment. This warfare was supposed to be de-escalated by the 640 page Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. The Report is supposed to undermine the prejudices which have so long infected this subject by bringing to bear upon it objective facts and solid evidence derived from systematic empirical research

Juvenile Obscenity Statutes: A Proposal and Analysis

The article that follows is based largely upon a Study Report on juvenile obscenity statutes prepared for the Michigan Law Revision Commission. The objectives of the Report were (1) to analyze the various issues presented in drafting a juvenile obscenity provision, (2) to survey the treatment of those issues in statutes adopted by various states and statutes proposed by several distinguished commissions, and (3) to propose a comprehensive model statute that offers a choice of alternative provisions on key areas of controversy. Certain limitations placed upon the scope of the Report (and this article) should be noted. First, we were not asked to discuss whether the state should adopt a provision regulating the dissemination of sexually oriented material to juveniles. The Report assumed that a juvenile obscenity provision would be adopted and the issue before us was what should be included in that statute. Second, the Report assumed that the provision would be in the form of a criminal statute. We did not consider the possibility of utilizing a civil proceeding as the basic means of regulation. Third, it was assumed that the statute would be based upon essentially the same premises as supported the New York juvenile obscenity statute upheld in Ginsberg v. New York. Those premises are discussed in part I below

Juvenile Obscenity Statutes: A Proposal and Analysis

The article that follows is based largely upon a Study Report on juvenile obscenity statutes prepared for the Michigan Law Revision Commission. The objectives of the Report were (1) to analyze the various issues presented in drafting a juvenile obscenity provision, (2) to survey the treatment of those issues in statutes adopted by various states and statutes proposed by several distinguished commissions, and (3) to propose a comprehensive model statute that offers a choice of alternative provisions on key areas of controversy. Certain limitations placed upon the scope of the Report (and this article) should be noted. First, we were not asked to discuss whether the state should adopt a provision regulating the dissemination of sexually oriented material to juveniles. The Report assumed that a juvenile obscenity provision would be adopted and the issue before us was what should be included in that statute. Second, the Report assumed that the provision would be in the form of a criminal statute. We did not consider the possibility of utilizing a civil proceeding as the basic means of regulation. Third, it was assumed that the statute would be based upon essentially the same premises as supported the New York juvenile obscenity statute upheld in Ginsberg v. New York. Those premises are discussed in part I below