William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan…

We do not hold that law enforcement officers must renounce all informal contacts with persons suspected of violating valid laws prohibiting obscenity. Where such consultation is genuinely undertaken with the purpose of aiding the distributor to comply with such laws and avoid prosecution under them, it need not retard the full enjoyment of First Amendment freedoms. But that is not this case. The appellees are not law enforcement officers; they do not pretend that they are qualified to give or that they attempt to give distributors only fair legal advice.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan…

Criminal sanctions may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process. The Commission's practice is in striking contrast, in that it provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene, and therefore constitutionally protected, matter. It is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon the criminal law.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan…

But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions-the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation-the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed 'objectionable' and succeeded in its aim. [7] We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature