Historical commentary on obscenity regulation and Supreme Court decisions

4.2.12 WC: 191694 We categorically disapprove the theory...that obscene, pornographic films acquire constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they are exhibited for consenting adults only... The States have a long-recognized legitimate interest in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself. But as I promised Judge Aldrich, I continued to press my principle in the court of public opinion and in a series of other obscenity cases over the next several decades. Ultimately my view would prevail, if not in law then certainly in practice, as we shall see. Chief Justice Burger may have won in the courthouse, but we won in theaters and on television sets throughout the nation, as sexually explicit films—far more explicit than J Am Curious Yellow—became pervasive and “legal” in fact if not in law. This disparity between the law, as set down in theory by the Supreme Court, and the law, as implemented in practice throughout the country, is an interesting story in itself. 105 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017192