323 Mass. 302 | Mass. | 1948
A petition in equity seeking an adjudication that the novel "Forever Amber” is obscene, indecent, or impure invokes the procedure newly afforded by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 272, §§ 28C-28G, as inserted by St. 1945, c. 278, § 1. Answers were filed by The Macmillan Company, the publisher; by Johnson’s Bookstore, Inc., which had in its possession in Springfield copies of the book for the purpose of sale, loan, or distribution; and by the Board of Trade of the Boston Book Merchants, an association in Boston of those engaged in the sale, loan, and distribution of books, including the book in question. From a final decree in favor of the book the Attorney General appealed.
Statute 1945, c. 278, entitled "An Act relative to the importing, printing, publishing, selling or distributing of obscene books and other obscene matter,” repealed G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 272, § 28, as most recently amended by St.
The ensuing sections govern these proceedings. Section 28C reads in part: “Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that a book which is being imported, sold, loaned or distributed, or is in the possession of any person who intends to import, sell, loan or distribute the same, is obscene, indecent or impure, the attorney general, or any district attorney within his district, shall bring an information or petition in equity in the superior court directed against said book by name. Upon the filing of such information or petition in equity, a justice of the superior court shall, if, upon a summary examination of the book, he is of opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that such book is obscene, indecent or impure, issue an order of notice, returnable in or within thirty days, directed against such book by name and addressed to all persons interested in the publication, sale, loan or distribution thereof, to show cause why said book should not be judicially determined to be obscene, indecent or impure.”
There are provisions for notice by publication, for notice by registered mail to the publisher, the copyright holder, and the author, and for an interlocutory adjudication that the book is obscene, indecent, or impure (§ 28C); for appearance, answer, and claim of jury trial by any person interested in the sale, loan, or distribution of the book
The method of conducting a hearing is prescribed in § 28F: “If an appearance is entered and answer filed, the case shall be set down for speedy hearing, but a default and order shall first be entered against all persons who have not appeared and answered, in the manner provided in section twenty-eight E. Such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the usual course of proceedings in equity including all rights of exception and appeal. At such hearing, the court may receive the testimony of experts and may receive evidence as to the literary, cultural or educational character of said book and as to the manner and form of its publication, advertisement, and distribution. Upon such hearing, the court may make an adjudication in the manner provided in said section twenty-eight E.”
An information or petition in equity “shall not be open to objection on the ground that a mere judgment, order or decree is sought thereby
At the hearing the Attorney General introduced in evidence the novel, which has its setting in England during the Restoration. The publisher introduced evidence as to its publication and advertising, and called as witnesses two experts in psychiatry. The association of Boston book merchants and Johnson’s Bookstore, Inc., called as a witness an expert on the literature of the period. A third expert in psychiatry testified in rebuttal on behalf of the Attorney General.
For interpretation of the words “obscene, indecent or impure ” our present duty does not require us to look beyond the recent criminal case of Commonwealth v. Isenstadt, 318 Mass. 543. A book is to be treated as a whole (pages 548-549). “It is not to be condemned merely because it may contain somewhere between its covers some expressions which, taken by themselves alone, might be obnoxious to the statute.” A “book is within the statute if it contains prohibited matter in such quantity or of such nature as to flavor the whole and impart to the whole any of the qualities mentioned in the statute, so that the book as a whole can
The Attorney General excepted because the experts on psychiatry called by the publisher were permitted to answer numerous questions which in substance sought to elicit testimony that the book read as a whole either (1) has no substantial tendency to incite lascivious thoughts or arouse lustful desire on the part of the average adult reader or (2) does not violate current sex mores. The term “sexual mores of society,” as defined by one witness, “means sexual behavior in our time and our culture, and will define the deviations which are possible from the average behavior and delineate these against normal behavior.” It was error to admit testimony for either purpose. We need add nothing to what we said in these respects with full citation of authorities in Commonwealth v. Isenstadt, 318 Mass. 543, 558-560. To be sure, that case antedated the effective date of the present statute, but nothing in the quoted portion of § 28F makes admissible expert evidence irrespective of the field in which a witness may have unusual qualifications. It could not be contended that the evidence in question relates “to the literary, cultural or
■ Some of the publisher’s advertising was not in the highest taste, and was not limited to stressing literary or historical qualities. For example, on occasions there was an exhortation to the reading public that “in ‘Forever Amber’ [there] is a heroine who will remind them of Scarlett O’Hara and Catherine the Great rolled into one dainty package of dynamite and surrounded by a score of inflammable young Casanovas from the corrupt court of Charles II.” Another time the potential reader is assured that the authoress “Transports you back to the boisterous, brilliant, bawdy days of Charles II’s England.” The advertisements, however, are not part of the novel, which in final analysis must meet the test of the statute upon what is contained within its own covers.
The expert on literature testified that as a historical romance of the period, and “in giving the small group of persons with whom it deals,” “Forever Amber” is at least as correct as the romances of Cooper or Scott; that it is evident from the book that the author has stated with great care the manner of the period in these respects; that the dialogue more or less faithfully reflects what we have recorded of the-language and conversation of the period; that these matters indicate a certain amount of study and research; that it is a work of secondary order but with considerable narrative drive; that it is somewhat similar to “Roxana” and “Moll Flanders” by Daniel Defoe; that these and other works of Restoration literature, commonly found in college libraries, “essentially hold a thorough understanding of the age,” which was extremely cynical; that “Forever Amber” is sufficiently accurate for the purpose of representing a portrait of the period and its customs and morals; that it does not exaggerate or falsify any traits of the Restoration, if by that is-meant the conduct and-language of the small group around Charles II, which is the subject of the book; and that it would not be possible to write a historically accurate novel about the Restoration
The statute, as we have seen, provides that the "hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the usual course of proceedings in equity including all rights of exception and appeal” (§ 28F). Hence upon appeal the findings of the trial judge based upon oral testimony will not be reversed unless plainly wrong, but where there are findings based upon documentary evidence, such as this book, we reach our own conclusions unaffected by them. Harvey-Watts Co. v. Worcester Umbrella Co. 193 Mass. 138, 142-143. Bratt v. Cox, 290 Mass. 553, 557-558. Malden Trust Co. v. Brooks, 291 Mass. 273, 279. Berry v. Kyes, 304 Mass. 56, 57-58. Veazie v. Staples, 309 Mass. 123, 127. Eno v. Prime Manuf. Co. 314 Mass. 686, 700-701. From the reported evidence we may make additional findings not made by the trial judge. Lowell Bar Association v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 178. And with respect to the advertising and the testimony of the expert on literature we have done so.
In accordance with the principles outlined above it remains for us to make our own determination whether "Forever Amber” is obscene, indecent, or impure under the statute. It readily will be observed .that the present scope of review is substantially unlike that which confronted us in Commonwealth v. Isenstadt, 318 Mass. 543, 556, where we said, "The test is not what we ourselves think of the book, but what in our best judgment a trier of the facts might think of it without going beyond the bounds of honesty and reason.”
The book in the case at bar, when read in its long entirety, in the opinion of a majority of the court, does not offend against the statute. It undoubtedly has historical purpose, and in this is adequately accurate in achievement. 'The career of the heroine, an illegitimate child of noble bipod, is traced from an upbringing in a rustic environment through the vicissitudes of her life in or near London until she becomes a duchess and the mistress of Charles II. She has numerous lovers and bears three children by men whom she does not marry. She enters into four marriages, of
Decree affirmed.
See St. 1948, c, 328.
Compare G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231A, as inserted by St. 1945, c. 582, § 1.
See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 272, § 28B, as inserted by St. 1945, c, 278, § 1,