Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1986No. 18364-SA, 6671-PR and 17962-SAPublished

1DissentFeldman, Justice

While obscenity is not constitutionally protected, the procedure by which we determine what is obscene, unprotected speech directly implicates the first amendment because the threat of criminal prosecution chills freedom of expression. F. SCHAUER, THE LAW OF OBSCENITY at 35-40 (Bureau of National Affairs, 1976). Today’s decision is a step toward compelled self-censorship—not just of obscene material but of all material. It would take- a hardy soul indeed to continue to stock ULYSSES on the shelves of a bookstore, knowing that the state could prove its case simply by putting the book in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James JoyceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  3. FRIGALIMENT IMPORTING CO., LTD. v. BNS International Sales Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
  4. Matter of Barney Schogel, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1981
  5. Hunter v. BenchimolArizona Supreme Court · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API