FOX v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273 (1915)
- Argued:
- N/A
- Decided:
- February 23, 1915
- Decided by:
- White Court, 1914
- Action:
- Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.
Majority Opinion
Edward White Joseph McKenna Oliver Holmes William Day Charles Hughes Willis Van Devanter Joseph Lamar Mahlon Pitney James McReynolds
Concurring Opinion
No opinions found
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
236 U.S. 273
35 S.Ct. 383
59 L.Ed. 573
JAY FOX, Plff. in Err.,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
No. 134.
Submitted January 19, 1915.
Decided February 23, 1915.
Mr. Gilbert E. Roe for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 274 intentionally omitted]
Mr. W. V. Tanner, Attorney General of Washington, and Mr. Fred G. Remann, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an information for editing printed matter tending to encourage and advocate disrespect for law, contrary to a statute of Washington. The statute is as follows: ‘Every person who shall wilfully print, publish, edit, issue, or knowingly circulate, sell, distribute or display any book, paper, document, or written or printed matter, in any form, advocating, encouraging or inciting, or having a tendency to encourage or incite the commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or act of violence, or which shall tend to encourage or advocate disrespect for law or for any court or courts of justice, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor;’ Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2564. The defendant demurred on the ground that the act was unconstitutional. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant was tried and convicted. 71 Wash. 185, 127 Pac. 1111. With regard to the jurisdiction of this court, it should be observed that the supreme court of the state, while affirming that the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech, held not only that the act was valid in that respect, but also that it was not bad for uncertainty, citing Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 53 L. ed. 417, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220, so that we gather that the Constitution of the United States, and especially the 14th Amendment, was relied upon, apart from the certificate of the chief justice to that effect.
The printed matter in question is an article entitled, ‘The Nude and the Prudes,’ reciting in its earlier part that ‘Home is a community of free spirits, who came out into the woods to escape the polluted atmosphere of priest-ridden, conventional society;’ that ‘one of the liberties enjoyed by the Homeites was the privilege to bathe in evening dress, or with merely the clothes nature gave them, just as they chose;’ but that ‘eventually a few prudes got into the community and proceeded in the brutal, unneighborly way of the outside world to suppress the people’s freedom,’ and that they had four persons arrested on the charge of indecent exposure, followed in two cases, it seems, by sentences to imprisonment. ‘And the perpetrators of this vile action wonder why they are being boycotted.’ It goes on: ‘The well-merited indignation of the people has been aroused. Their liberty has been attacked. The first step in the way of subjecting the community to all the persecution of the outside has been taken. If this was let go without resistance the progress of the prudes would be easy.’ It then predicts and encourages the boycott of those who thus interfere with the freedom of Home, concluding: ‘The boycott will be pushed until these invaders will come to see the brutal mistake of their action and so inform the people.’ Thus by indirection, but unmistakably, the article encourages and incites a persistence in what we must assume would be a breach of the state laws against indecent exposure; and the jury so found.
So far as statutes fairly may be construed in such a way as to avoid doubtful constitutional questions they should be so construed (United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 407, 408, 53 L. ed. 836, 848, 849, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527); and it is to be presumed that state laws will be construed in that way by the state courts. We understand the state court by implication, at least, to have read the statute as confined to encouraging an actual breach of law. Therefore the argument that this act is both an unjustifiable restriction of liberty and too vague for a criminal law must fail. It does not appear and is not likely that the statute will be construed to prevent publications merely because they tend to produce unfavorable opinions of a particular statute or of law in general. In this present case the disrespect for law that was encouraged was disregard of it,—an overt breach and technically criminal act. It would be in accord with the usages of English to interpret disrespect as manifested disrespect, as active disregard going beyond the line drawn by the law. That is all that has happened as yet, and we see no reason to believe that the statute will be stretched beyond that point.
If the statute should be construed as going no farther than it is necessary to go in order to bring the defendant within it, there is no trouble with it for want of definiteness. See Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 57 L. ed. 1232, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853. It lays hold of encouragements that, apart from statute, if directed to a particular person’s conduct, generally would make him who uttered them guilty of a misdemeanor if not an accomplice or a principal in the crime encouraged, and deals with the publication of them to a wider and less selected audience. Laws of this description are not unfamiliar. Of course we have nothing to do with the wisdom of the defendant, the prosecution, or the act. All that concerns us is that it cannot be said to infringe the Constitution of the United States.
Judgment affirmed.
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF ERIE, et al. v. PAP’S A. M., TDBA ‘KANDYLAND’, 529 U.S. 277 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
MICHAEL BARNES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, et al. v. GLEN THEATRE, INC., et al., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FW/PBS, INC., DBA PARIS ADULT BOOKSTORE II, et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS et al., 493 U.S. 215 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 et al. v. FRASER, A MINOR, et al., 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
BROCKETT v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., 472 U.S. 491 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
SCHAD et al. v. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, 452 U.S. 61 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION et al., 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
PINKUS, DBA ROSSLYN NEWS CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES, 436 U.S. 293 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SPLAWN v. CALIFORNIA, 431 U.S. 595 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SMITH v. UNITED STATES, 431 U.S. 291 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MARKS et al. v. UNITED STATES, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
YOUNG, MAYOR OF DETROIT, et al. v. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC., et al., 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MCKINNEY v. ALABAMA, 424 U.S. 669 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. CONRAD et al., 420 U.S. 546 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
HAMLING et al. v. UNITED STATES, 418 U.S. 87 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ALEXANDER et al. v. VIRGINIA, 413 U.S. 836 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
PARIS ADULT THEATRE I et al. v. SLATON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
KAPLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. 12 200-FT. REELS OF SUPER 8MM. FILM et al. (PALADINI, CLAIMANT), 413 U.S. 123 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. ORITO, 413 U.S. 139 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. THIRTY-SEVEN (37) PHOTOGRAPHS (LUROS, CLAIMANT), 402 U.S. 363 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. REIDEL, 402 U.S. 351 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GROVE PRESS, INC., et al. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS, 401 U.S. 480 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BLOUNT, POSTMASTER GENERAL, et al. v. RIZZI, DBA THE MAIL BOX, 400 U.S. 410 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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
LEE ART THEATRE, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 392 U.S. 636 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
MISHKIN v. NEW YORK, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GINZBURG et al. v. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GROVE PRESS, INC., v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, et al., 378 U.S. 577 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
KINGSLEY INTERNATIONAL PICTURES CORP. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
KINGSLEY BOOKS, INC., et al. v. BROWN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, 354 U.S. 436 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
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-Topic:
- Obscenity
MUTUAL FILM CORPORATIONN v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 236 U.S. 230 (1915)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
External Resources:
- John R. Vile, “Fox v. Washington (1915),” First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Topics: Freedom of Speech & Expression, Obscenity
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE