by John Marshall Harlan

“ For me, at least, Stanley rests on the proposition that freedom from governmental manipulation of the content of a man's mind necessitates a ban on punishment for the mere possession of the memorabilia of a man's thoughts and dreams, unless that punishment can be related to a state interest of a stronger nature than the simple desire to proscribe obscenity as such. In other words, the 'right to receive' recognized in Stanley is not a right to the existence of modes of distribution of obscenity which the State could destroy without serious risk of infringing on the privacy of a man's thoughts ”

“ Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 416, 91 S.Ct. 423, 428, 27 L.Ed.2d 498 (1971) ; Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property, etc., 367 U.S. 717, 731, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 1715-1716, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127 (1961) . See Freedman v. ”