Redrup v. New York
This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2013) |
| Redrup v. New York | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 10–11, 1966 Decided May 8, 1967 | |
| Full case name | Robert Redrup, Petitioners v. State of New York; William L. Austin, Petitioner v. State of Kentucky; Gent, et al., Appellants v. State of Arkansas |
| Citations | 386 U.S. 767 (more) 87 S. Ct. 1414; 18 L. Ed. 2d 515; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1571 |
| Holding | |
| Written materials that were not sold to minors, or foisted on unwilling audiences were constitutionally protected. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Clark |
Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967), was a May 8, 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States,[1] widely regarded as the end of American censorship of written fiction. Robert Redrup was a Times Square newsstand clerk who sold two of William Hamling's Greenleaf Classics paperback pulp sex novels, Lust Pool and Shame Agent, to a plainclothes police officer. He was tried and convicted in 1965.
With financial backing from Hamling, Redrup appealed his case to the Supreme Court where his conviction was overturned by 7–2. The court's final ruling affirmed that written materials that were neither sold to minors nor foisted on unwilling audiences were constitutionally protected, thereby de facto ending American censorship of written material. After this decision, the Supreme Court systematically and summarily reversed, without further opinion, scores of obscenity rulings involving paperback sex books.
"Redrupping"
[edit]The Court's decision came at a time when the Justices were unable to agree upon a single, workable test regarding what would constitute obscenity. For example, Justice Stewart's belief that hard-core pornography should be covered by obscenity law, even if he was unable to state a clear definition for what exactly constituted "hard-core" material, was summed up with his notorious expression: "I know it when I see it."
Accordingly, the Court adopted a process by which each justice would review the material in question and determine, according to their own understanding, whether or not it constituted obscenity.[2] To do this, the Justices would gather in a conference room in the U.S. Supreme Court Building to watch the films being challenged by obscenity cases.[3] This process was referred to in lawyer's slang as "redrupping."[4]
Justices Douglas and Black did not attend these screenings; both men took an absolutist, anti-censorship approach towards the First Amendment and did not believe that any films should be banned.[5] Justice Burger also preferred not to go.[6] Justice Harlan, whose eyesight was deteriorating in old age, would sit closest to the screen in order to see the outlines of what was happening on-screen, and often required clerks or fellow Justices to describe the action.[7]
The "redrupping" era came to an end with the 1973 decision Miller v. California, which laid down the three-prong standard known as the Miller test for obscenity.
See also
[edit]- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 386
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court
- List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
References
[edit]- ^ Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967).
- ^ Werhan, Keith (2004). Freedom of Speech: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 101. ISBN 0313319979. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
- ^ Woodward, Bob; Armstrong, Scott (1979). The Bretheren. Simon & Schuster. p. 198. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
- ^ "Books for Lawyers". ABA Journal: 492. April 1983. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
- ^ Woodward, Bob; Armstrong, Scott (1979). The Bretheren. Simon & Schuster. p. 198. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
- ^ Woodward, Bob; Armstrong, Scott (1979). The Bretheren. Simon & Schuster. p. 198. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
- ^ Woodward, Bob; Armstrong, Scott (1979). The Bretheren. Simon & Schuster. p. 198. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
Further reading
[edit]- Hagle, Timothy M. (1991). "But Do They Have to See It to Know It? The Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions". The Western Political Quarterly. 44 (4). University of Utah: 1039–1054. doi:10.2307/448806. JSTOR 448806.
- Kobylka, Joseph F. (1987). "A Court-Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity". The Journal of Politics. 49 (4). Cambridge University Press: 1061–1078. doi:10.2307/2130784. JSTOR 2130784. S2CID 154570173.
External links
[edit]Works related to Redrup v. New York at Wikisource
- Text of Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967), is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |