Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Ginzburg v. United State Mishkin…

Today's condemnation of the use of sex symbols to sell literature, engrafts another exception on First Amendment rights that is as unwarranted as the judge-made exception concerning obscenity. This new exception condemns an advertising technique as old as history. The advertisements of our best magazines are chock-full of thighs, ankles, calves, bosoms, eyes, and hair, to draw the potential buyer's attention to lotions, tires, food, liquor, clothing, autos, and even insurance policies.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Ginzburg v. United State Mishkin…

I find it difficult to say that a publication has no 'social importance' because it caters to the taste of the most unorthodox amongst us. We members of this Court should be among the last to say what should be orthodox in literature. An omniscience would be required which few in our whole society possess.
This leads me to the conclusion, previously noted, that the First Amendment allows all ideas to be expressed-whether orthodox, popular, offbeat, or repulsive.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature