BANTAM BOOKS, INC. v. SULLIVAN

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a state commission with broad discretion to define obscenity, and that allowed police enforcement of obscenity laws, was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Action

The Supreme Court overruled the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. The Supreme Court, though upholding that obscenity remains outside the First Amendment, stated: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that regulation by the States of obscenity conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression.” The Commission, however, had “no provision whatever for judicial superintendence before notices issue or even for judicial review of the Commission’s determinations of objectionableness” and so violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts/Syllabus

The Rhode Island Legislature created a Commission "to educate the public concerning any book . . . or other thing containing obscene, indecent or impure language, or manifestly tending to the corruption of the youth as defined [in other sections] and to investigate and recommend the prosecution of all violations of said sections." The Commission's practice was to notify a distributor that certain books or magazines distributed by him had been reviewed by the Commission and had been declared by a majority of its members to be objectionable for sale, distribution or display to youths under 18 years of age. Such notices requested the distributor's "cooperation," and advised him that copies of the lists of "objectionable" publications were circulated to local police departments, and that it was the Commission's duty to recommend prosecution of purveyors of obscenity. 

Four out-of-state publishers of books widely distributed in the state sued for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the law and the practices thereunder were unconstitutional. The appellants filed suit in the Superior Court of Rhode Island (1) to declare the law creating the Commission in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and (2) to declare unconstitutional and enjoin the acts and practices of the appellees thereunder. The Superior Court declined to declare the law creating the Commission unconstitutional on its face, but granted the appellants an injunction against the acts and practices of the appellees in performance of their duties. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court with respect to appellants first prayer, but reversed the grant of injunctive relief.

Importance of Case

The Supreme Court held that the methods states use to prevent unconstitutional expression must be careful not to curtail protected expression.