Alessandra Petrino
ILS 599- Summer 2013
Final Paper
Case Name:
Stanley v. Georgia
Citation:
394 U.S. 557, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542, 89 S. Ct. 1243 (1969)
Courts involved:
Supreme Court of Georgia (Original Case) (Stanley v. State)
Supreme Court of U.S. – Warren Court (Stanley v. Georgia)
Original Case:
Stanley v. State, 224 Ga. 259, 161 S.E.2d 309 (1968)
Robert Eli Stanley, a resident of the state of Georgia, was
suspected of bookmaking. When police obtained a warrant, based
on probable cause, to search his home for evidence of bookmaking,
they discovered three reels of eight-millimeter film. Police
watched the films in Stanley’s home, using his projector. The
police deemed the material pornographic and arrested Stanley for
possession of obscene material, then a crime in Georgia. The
police seized the reels as evidence. Stanley was tried and
convicted. He appealed this conviction and the Supreme Court of
Georgia affirmed the conviction.
Parties:
Robert Eli Stanley, appellant
State of Georgia, appellee
Summary:
After being convicted, Stanley contended that the Georgia
obscenity statute was unconstitutional insofar as it punished mere
possession of obscene matter. Georgia upheld the statute’s validity
on the grounds that “obscenity is not within the area of
constitutionally protected speech or press,” relying on Roth v.
United States, 354 U.S. 476.
However, it was held that the First Amendment, applicable to the
States through the Fourteenth amendment, prohibits criminalizing
mere private possession of obscene material. No decisions of the
Court had been handed down on the issue of private possession,
but involved governmental power to prohibit or regulate certain
public actions respecting obscene matter.
Due to the fact that the Constitution protects the right to receive
information and ideas, the mere possession without intent to sell or
distribute obscene material cannot be punishable by law.
It was stated that a prosecution for mere possession of printed or
filmed matter found in the privacy of one’s home intrudes upon the
fundamental right to be free from unwanted governmental
intrusions into one’s privacy.
Stanley asserted the right to read or observe what he pleases, “the
right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy
of his own home,” as well as the right to be free from state inquiry
into his library.
Georgia contended that the appellant did not have these rights
insofar as the material in question is deemed obscene.
The Court decided mere categorization of the materials as
“obscene” is insufficient justification for such invasions of civil
liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Georgia claimed that mere possession of obscenity was likely to
result in “sexual deviant behavior” and “crimes of sexual
violence.” The Court stated that punishment of an act solely as a
preventative measure to ensure than another law would not be
violated was discouraged.
Georgia also claimed that it would be impossible to effectively
control distribution of materials if possession was allowed. The
Court held that a person’s First Amendment rights were more
important than the supposed harm the State was attempting to
prevent.
Opinion:
The opinion of the unanimous Court was written by Justice
Thurgood Marshall, in favor of the appellant, Robert Eli Stanley.
The Court reversed Georgia’s decision, basing its holding by
drawing a distinction between public display and private
possession of obscenity.
The case was a matter of first impression as the Court had never
before faced the question concerning private ownership of obscene
material.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the freedom
of speech, which includes the right to possess the material stored
on the reels.
The Court reasoned that Georgia’s decision encroached on
Stanley’s “pursuit of happiness.” The Court also dismissed
Georgia’s claim that possession of obscenity necessarily led to
“deviant sexual behavior” and “crimes of a sexual violence,”
deeming that there was no empirical evidence to support this and
therefore there was no validity to this claim.
The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment, protects the private possession of
obscenity. The decision clearly drew the distinction between
private possession and public display.
Concurrences:
Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Brennan and Justice White
The films brought in as evidence, though deemed lawfully seized
violate the Fourth Amendment in that this Amendment states, “no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.” Therefore a search that
was perfectly lawful (in search of evidence of bookmaking)
became the occasion for unwarranted and unconstitutional seizure
of the films that serve as evidence in this case. The warrant gave
them authority to only seize gambling material, not the films that
were seized thereafter.
Justice Stewart stated that because these films were seized in a
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, they should
be inadmissible in the evidence at the appellant’s trial.
Importance of case: For librarians, Stanley v. Georgia is an extremely important case.
As understood from the summary above, the original conviction of
Stanley violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The verdict in the Stanley v. Georgia case implied the existence of
a right to privacy. This right includes intellectual privacy meaning
that persons have the freedom to view the ideas that they wish and
have the right to receive information. The Court held that the First
and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making possession of
obscene materials a crime.
Being the gatekeepers of information, the freedom to intellectual
privacy is very important to librarians. Persons shall be free to
read and view any materials in the privacy of their own homes
without the fear of intrusion of privacy. The job of the librarian is
not only to provide access to informational materials for patrons
but also to help ensure that people know they have this freedom.
The Court held that though the private possession of material was
constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, public display
continued to be subject to state regulation.
References
"Notable First Amendment Court Cases." American Library Association. Web. 20 July
2013.<http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/
courtcases>.
"Robert Eli STANLEY, Appellant, v. State of GEORGIA." LII. Web. 20 July
2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/394/557>.
"STANLEY v. GEORGIA." Stanley v. Georgia. Web. 20 July 2013.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_293/>.
"Stanley v. Georgia." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Web. 20 July 2013.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia>.