Sunday, June 15, 2014

Obscenity on Trial Part III

This is Part III in a series of posts covering One, Inc. v. Olesen, which dealt with obscenity laws.

Click for Part IPart II, Part IVPart VPart VI

Moving from the statutes into the actual District Court decision, it is important to remember that this is an unpublished decision. More or less, it was never intended to give guidance or to define the terms for the public.

Here is the body of the decision with my own annotations:
The motion of the defendant for summary judgement is granted.  The publication of the plaintiff entitled "One, The Homosexual Magazine" is non-mailable matter within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. 1461.  "Sappo Remembered" and other stories are obviously calculated to stimulate the lust of the homosexual reader.  
How much do you want to bet the judge was stimulated himself by the story? Fap, Fap, Fap. "Yes, you are a filthy, dirty dirty girl." Fap. Fap. Fap.

The poem "Lord Samuel and Lord Montagu" in particular, is filthy and obscene.
How is it filthy or obscene. Please cite your sources and explain how it is obscene, otherwise you're just making shit up, or worse you're banning something for simply not liking it which is antithetic to Free Speech.

Once again, the poem is fairly innocuous. It's obvious that the judge simply found homosexuals to be intolerable and who shouldn't be recognized as a segment of the population.
 Many of the advertisement for the Swiss publication "The Circle" lead to the obtaining of obscene matter. For these reasons, the injunction against the plaintiff should remain in force. 
So the magazine doesn't show dirty things, only where you can get something else that may or may not be dirty.
The suggestion advanced that homosexuals should be recognized as a segment of our people and be accorded special privilege as a class is rejected.
Ha. Called it. What an asshole.

Besides for name calling, an yelling hysterically at the denizens of the 1950s for being bigots, what can we take away from this decision?

Obscenity can be defined as whatever the judge dislike or finds to be filthy. Obscenity needs no perimeters. I cannot even be for certain that the judge actually looked at the magazine because so little evidence is presented.

It is also important to remember this case as history and to marvel at how far the LGBT community has come since this decision. It would now be unconscionable for a judge to write, "The suggestion advanced that homosexuals should be recognized as a segment of our people." And yes this was 60 years ago, but at the same time it was only 60 years ago.

One, Inc. v. Olesen district court
Please notice the accidental ruling in favor of One Inc.  Woops.

Next in these series is I will cover the 9th Circuit Court decision. **Spoilers: there will be more masturbation jokes.**

Liam '14

Part I, Part IIPart IVPart VPart VI

Thanks to the Mattachine Society, homophiles such as myself can view our share history. In this case its One, Inc. v. Olesen.

No comments:

Post a Comment