*1 959 congressional to content to the mandate give these cases of “minimization.”
I limited to the grant petitions therefore the would “minimization” questions presented respecting pro- the argument. the for oral vision, (5), 2518 and set cases § Kutler 3d No. 75-236. v. United States. C. A. being Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice of Douglas, Mr. by the in previous opinions stated himself1 and view, by any regula- Mr. Justice that federal ban or Black,2 on, tion obscenity speech freedom of and of the abridges of, press contrary to grant the First would cer- Amendment, summarily tiorari and judgment. reverse the Mr. Justice Mr. Brennan, with whom Justice Stewart and Marshall dissenting. Mr. Justice concur,
Petitioner was convicted in the United District States Court for of Pennsylvania ship- the Western District of by ping obscene films common carrier in com- interstate in merce violation of 18 U. S. C. and of con- 1462, § spiracy to violate 1462 to transport § and the films in purpose interstate commerce for the of or distribu- sale tion in violation of 18 U. S. C. 1462 § Section 1465. provides pertinent part: in brings any
“Whoever into the or United States, place subject jurisdiction to the or know- thereof, any uses ingly express company or other common carrier, for in carriage or foreign interstate commerce—
“(a) any filthy or obscene, lascivious, lewd, book, 1 United Film, States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels 123, 413 U. S. 130- of Ginzburg (1973) States, v. United (dissenting); 138 463, 383 S.U. (1966) (dissenting); States, Roth v. United 491-492 476, 354 U. S. (1957) 508-514 (dissenting). 2 Ginzburg States, supra, United (dissenting). at 476 v. 960 paper, let- motion-picture film,
pamphlet, picture, other matter of indecent ter, or writing, print, *2 . character; . . impris- $5,000 fined not than or
“Shall be more or first oned not more than five for'the years, both, $10,000 such not more offense and shall be fined than imprisoned or not ten for both, more than or years, each such offense thereafter.” affirmed Court of for Third Circuit the Appeals
The
the
I my Orito, adhere to dissent in United States 413 v. 139, U. 147 in speaking S. of 18 U. S. C. (1973), which, I “[wjhatever 1462, expressed § the view the ex that of power tent the Federal Government’s to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene juveniles material to exposure or the of offensive such material to unconsent- ing statute us is adults, clearly the before overbroad and on unconstitutional its face.” 413 U. at 147-148. S., For in my the reasons stated in dissent Miller v. Califor nia, 413 U. 47 I S. would 15, therefore cer- grant (1973), the tiorari, judgment since of Appeals the Court of and, for the Third Circuit was rendered after reverse.* Orito, I In that circumstance, have no occasion to consider questions whether the presented plenary other merit review. York, See Heller v. New 413 483, U. S. 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). McKinney
No. 75-428. -C. A. 5th v. Parsons. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice being of Mr. Douglas, previous the in opinions stated view, by by himself1 and * Although grant four of us would judg certiorari and the reverse ment, join the Justices opinion who this do not insist the case that be decided on the merits. California, 1Miller v. (1973) 413 U. 15, (dissenting); S. 42-47 Paris Adult Slaton, Theatre I v. (1973) (dis 49, 413 U. S. 70-73