Byron White, Memoirs v. Massachusetts — Dissent
“ Roth does not mean that a legislature is free to ban books simply because they deal with sex or because they appeal to the prurient interest. Nor does it mean that if books like Fanny Hill are unprotected, their nonprurient appeal is necessarily lost to the world. ”
Byron White, Memoirs v. Massachusetts — Dissent
“ To say that material within the Roth definition of obscenity is nevertheless not obscene if it has some redeeming social value is to reject one of the basic propositions of the Roth case-that such material is not protected because it is inherently and utterly without social value. ”
Byron White, Memoirs v. Massachusetts — Dissent
“ Well written, especially effective obscenity is protected; the poorly written is vulnerable. And why shouldn't the fact that some people buy and read such material prove its 'social value'?A fortiori, if the predominant theme of the book appeals to the prurient interest as stated in Roth but the book nevertheless contains here and there a passage descriptive of character, geography or architecture, the book would not be 'obscene' under the social importance test. ”
