First Amendment Library
ADVANCED SEARCHBUTLER v. MICHIGAN, 352 U.S. 380 (1957)
- Argued:
- October 16, 1956
- Decided:
- February 25, 1957
- Decided by:
- Warren Court, 1956
- Legal Principle at Issue:
- Whether a Michigan statute punishing sales of books "tending to the corruption of the morals of youth" is so vague as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
Majority Opinion
John Harlan (1955-71) William Douglas William Brennan Earl Warren Tom Clark Felix Frankfurter Harold Burton Stanley Reed
Concurring Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
BUTLER
v.
MICHIGAN.
APPEAL FROM THE RECORDER’S COURT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN.Manuel Lee Robbins argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was William G. Comb.
Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General of Michigan, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Thomas M. Kavanagh, Attorney General, and Daniel J. O’Hara, Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellant were filed by Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council. Inc., Osmond K. Fraenkel for the Authors League of America, Inc., and Erwin B. Ellmann for the Metropolitan Detroit Branch. American Civil Liberties Union.
John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General, and Philip Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of Texas, as amicus curiae, urging that the appeal be dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the Recorder’s Court of the City of Detroit, Michigan, *381 challenges the constitutionality of the following provision, § 343, of the Michigan Penal Code:
“Any person who shall import, print, publish, sell, possess with the intent to sell, design, prepare, loan, give away, distribute or offer for sale, any book, magazine, newspaper, writing, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, print, picture, drawing, photograph, publication or other thing, including any recordings, containing obscene, immoral, lewd or lascivious language, or obscene, immoral, lewd or lascivious prints, pictures, figures or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth, or shall introduce into any family, school or place of education or shall buy, procure, receive or have in his possession, any such book, pamphlet, magazine, newspaper, writing, ballad, printed paper, print, picture, drawing, photograph, publication or other thing, either for the purpose of sale, exhibition, loan or circulation, or with intent to introduce the same into any family, school or place of education, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Appellant was charged with its violation for selling to a police officer what the trial judge characterized as “a book containing obscene, immoral, lewd, lascivious language, or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth.” Appellant moved to dismiss the proceeding on the claim that application of § 343 unduly restricted freedom of speech as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in that the statute (1) prohibited distribution of a book to the general public on the basis of the undesirable influence it may have upon youth; (2) damned a book and *382 proscribed its sale merely because of some isolated passages that appeared objectionable when divorced from the book as a whole; and (3) failed to provide a sufficiently definite standard of guilt. After hearing the evidence, the trial judge denied the motion, and, in an oral opinion, held that “. . . the defendant is guilty because he sold a book in the City of Detroit containing this language [the passages deemed offensive], and also because the Court feels that even viewing the book as a whole, it [the objectionable language] was not necessary to the proper development of the theme of the book nor of the conflict expressed therein.” Appellant was fined $100.
Pressing his federal claims, appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan. Although the State consented to the granting of the application “because the issues involved in this case are of great public interest, and because it appears that further clarification of the language of . . . [the statute] is necessary,” leave to appeal was denied. In view of this denial, the appeal is here from the Recorder’s Court of Detroit. We noted probable jurisdiction. 350 U. S. 963.
Appellant’s argument here took a wide sweep. We need not follow him. Thus, it is unnecessary to dissect the remarks of the trial judge in order to determine whether he construed § 343 to ban the distribution of books merely because certain of their passages, when viewed in isolation, were deemed objectionable. Likewise, we are free to put aside the claim that the Michigan law falls within the doctrine whereby a New York obscenity statute was found invalid in Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507.
It is clear on the record that appellant was convicted because Michigan, by § 343, made it an offense for him to make available for the general reading public (and he in fact sold to a police officer) a book that the trial judge *383 found to have a potentially deleterious influence upon youth. The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the general welfare. Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig. Indeed, the Solicitor General of Michigan has, with characteristic candor, advised the Court that Michigan has a statute specifically designed to protect its children against obscene matter “tending to the corruption of the morals of youth.”[*] But the appellant was not convicted for violating this statute.
We have before us legislation not reasonably restricted to the evil with which it is said to deal. The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. It thereby *384 arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties of the individual, now enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the maintenance and progress of a free society. We are constrained to reverse this conviction.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the result.
NOTES
[*] Section 142 of Michigan’s Penal Code provides:
“Any person who shall sell, give away or in any way furnish to any minor child any book, pamphlet, or other printed paper or other thing, containing obscene language, or obscene prints, pictures, figures or descriptions tending to the corruption of the morals of youth, or any newspapers, pamphlets or other printed paper devoted to the publication of criminal news, police reports, or criminal deeds, and any person who shall in any manner hire, use or employ such child to sell, give away, or in any manner distribute such books, pamphlets or printed papers, and any person having the care, custody or control of any such child, who shall permit him or her to engage in any such employment, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Section 143 provides:
“Any person who shall exhibit upon any public street or highway, or in any other place within the view of children passing on any public street or highway, any book, pamphlet or other printed paper or thing containing obscene language or obscene prints, figures, or descriptions, tending to the corruption of the morals of youth, or any newspapers, pamphlets, or other printed paper or thing devoted to the publication of criminal news, police reports or criminal deeds, shall on conviction thereof be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, et al., 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 542 U.S. 656 (2004)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO v. Z. J. GIFTS D-4, L. L. C., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DBA CHRISTAL’S, 541 U.S. 774 (2004)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC., et al., 535 U.S. 425 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., 535 U.S. 564 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Speech Harmful to Children
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. THE FREE SPEECH COALITION et al., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES, et al. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
CITY OF ERIE, et al. v. PAP’S A. M., TDBA ‘KANDYLAND’, 529 U.S. 277 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material, Speech Harmful to Children
UNITED STATES v. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., et al., 513 U.S. 64 (1994)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FERRIS J. ALEXANDER, SR. v. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 544 (1993)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
MICHAEL BARNES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, et al. v. GLEN THEATRE, INC., et al., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
OSBORNE v. OHIO, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
FW/PBS, INC., DBA PARIS ADULT BOOKSTORE II, et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS et al., 493 U.S. 215 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material, Speech Harmful to Children
MASSACHUSETTS v. OAKES, 491 U.S. 576 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FORT WAYNE BOOKS, INC. v. INDIANA et al., 489 U.S. 46 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
VIRGINIA v. AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 484 U.S. 383 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
POPE et al. v. ILLINOIS, 481 U.S. 497 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF NEWPORT, KENTUCKY, et al. v. IACOBUCCI, DBA TALK OF THE TOWN, et al., 479 U.S. 92 (1986)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled (in part)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ARCARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY v. CLOUD BOOKS, INC., DBA VILLAGE BOOK & NEWS STORE, et al., 478 U.S. 697 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 et al. v. FRASER, A MINOR, et al., 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
NEW YORK v. P.J. VIDEO, INC., DBA NETWORK VIDEO, et al., 475 U.S. 868 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF RENTON et al. v. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC., et al., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
BROCKETT v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., 472 U.S. 491 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
NEW YORK v. FERBER, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material, Speech Harmful to Children
GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NORFOLK, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
CALIFORNIA ex rel. COOPER, CITY ATTORNEY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA v. MITCHELL BROTHERS’ SANTA ANA THEATER et al., 454 U.S. 90 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY v. BELLANCA, DBA THE MAIN EVENT, et al., 452 U.S. 714 (1981)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled (in part)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
SCHAD et al. v. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, 452 U.S. 61 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
FLYNT et al. v. OHIO, 451 U.S. 619 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
VANCE et al. v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., INC., et al., 445 U.S. 308 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
SMITH, JUDGE, et al. v. DAILY MAIL PUBLISHING CO. et al., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION et al., 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material, Speech Harmful to Children
PINKUS, DBA ROSSLYN NEWS CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES, 436 U.S. 293 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
WARD v. ILLINOIS, 431 U.S. 767 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
SPLAWN v. CALIFORNIA, 431 U.S. 595 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SMITH v. UNITED STATES, 431 U.S. 291 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO. v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, et al., 430 U.S. 308 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
MARKS et al. v. UNITED STATES, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
YOUNG, MAYOR OF DETROIT, et al. v. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC., et al., 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
MCKINNEY v. ALABAMA, 424 U.S. 669 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
DORAN v. SALEM INN, INC., et al., 422 U.S. 922 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Sexual Material
ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. CONRAD et al., 420 U.S. 546 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
COX BROADCASTING CORP. et al. v. COHN, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
JENKINS v. GEORGIA, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
HAMLING et al. v. UNITED STATES, 418 U.S. 87 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
ALEXANDER et al. v. VIRGINIA, 413 U.S. 836 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
PARIS ADULT THEATRE I et al. v. SLATON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
KAPLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
UNITED STATES v. 12 200-FT. REELS OF SUPER 8MM. FILM et al. (PALADINI, CLAIMANT), 413 U.S. 123 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
UNITED STATES v. ORITO, 413 U.S. 139 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
PAPISH v. BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI et al., 410 U.S. 667 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CALIFORNIA et al. v. LARUE et al., 409 U.S. 109 (1972)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled (in part)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
RABE v. WASHINGTON, 405 U.S. 313 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
UNITED STATES v. THIRTY-SEVEN (37) PHOTOGRAPHS (LUROS, CLAIMANT), 402 U.S. 363 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
UNITED STATES v. REIDEL, 402 U.S. 351 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
GROVE PRESS, INC., et al. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS, 401 U.S. 480 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
BLOUNT, POSTMASTER GENERAL, et al. v. RIZZI, DBA THE MAIL BOX, 400 U.S. 410 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
HOYT et al. v. MINNESOTA, 399 U.S. 524 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BLOSS et al. v. DYKEMA, 398 U.S. 278 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROWAN, DBA AMERICAN BOOK SERVICE, et al. v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT et al., 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CAIN et al. v. KENTUCKY, 397 U.S. 319 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
STANLEY v. GEORGIA, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
LEE ART THEATRE, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 392 U.S. 636 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
RABECK v. NEW YORK, 391 U.S. 462 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC., et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 391 U.S. 53 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GINSBERG v. NEW YORK, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material, Speech Harmful to Children
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Speech Harmful to Children
FELTON et al. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
I.M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO., 389 U.S. 573 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE ex rel. CANALE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CENTRAL MAGAZINE SALES, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 50 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
POTOMAC NEWS CO. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 47 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CONNER v. CITY OF HAMMOND, 389 U.S. 48 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ADAY et al. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 447 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BOOKS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 449 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 442 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SHEPERD et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 444 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
AVANSINO et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 446 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CORINTH PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. WESBERRY et al., 388 U.S. 448 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 450 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS et al. v. KANSAS, 388 U.S. 452 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SCHACKMAN et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 454 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
REDRUP v. NEW YORK, 386 U.S. 767 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
REDMOND et ux. v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 264 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
A BOOK NAMED ‘JOHN CLELAND’S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE’ et al. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
MISHKIN v. NEW YORK, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
GINZBURG et al. v. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
GROVE PRESS, INC., v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, et al., 378 U.S. 577 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
TRALINS v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, 378 U.S. 576 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BANTAM BOOKS, INC., et al. v. SULLIVAN et al., 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
MANUAL ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. v. DAY, POSTMASTER GENERAL, 370 U.S. 478 (1962)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SMITH v. CALIFORNIA, 361 U.S. 147 (1959)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
KINGSLEY INTERNATIONAL PICTURES CORP. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
KINGSLEY BOOKS, INC., et al. v. BROWN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, 354 U.S. 436 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
SUPERIOR FILMS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF OHIO, DIVISION OF FILM CENSORSHIP, HISSONG, SUPERINTENDENT, 346 U.S. 587 (1954)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. ALPERS, 338 U.S. 680 (1950)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
WINTERS v. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507 (1948)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Obscenity, Sexual Material
MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 236 U.S. 230 (1915)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FOX v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273 (1915)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
External Resources:
- Tom McInnis, “Butler v. Michigan (1957),” First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Topics: Freedom of Speech & Expression, Obscenity, Sexual Material, Speech Harmful to Children
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.