 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Smith v California
S. Ct. U.S. 1959
Author:- Sam Biers
Relevant Facts: Df was the owner of a bookstore in L.A. California alleged to have sold or distributed obscene books.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the state has power to restrict the dissemination of books by eliminating the scienter requirement?
Court’s Holding: No, the scienter requirement in this case is a constitutional guarantee.
Procedure: [Trial ct. conviction, Ct. app affirmed.] Reversed.
Law or Rule(s): Scienter to some degree is a requirement for a constitutionally permissable prosecution under a criminal obscenity statute.
Court Rationale: This ordinance’s strict liability feature would tend seriously to have the effect, of conferring states power in restricting books which are not obscene, by penalizing booksellers, without notice they had knowledge of the character of the books they sold. The existence of the State’s power to prevent the distribution of obscene matter does not mean that there can be no constitutional barrier to any form of practical exercise of that power. This ordinance, although aimed at obscene material, inhibits protected expression.
Plaintiff’s Argument: The ordinance prohibits distribution of books which are obscene, the df sold obscene books.
Defendant’s Argument: The ordinance eliminated a constitutionally protected requirement. Df had no knowledge of the subject matter within the books.
Scienter - knowledge of the character and content of the subject matter.