State v. International Amusements
Utah Supreme Court
1DissentWilkins, Justice
I respectfully dissent. Addressing first the issue of scienter, it is constitutionally impermissible to construe and apply an anti-obscenity statute so as to hold a defendant strictly liable for prohibited activity regardless of his lack of knowledge of the character of the materials he possesses and sells. The United States Constitution as interpreted in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), will not tolerate such a restriction on the freedom of the press. The Utah Legislature has spoken definitively in regard to the particular mental state required. Utah *1115Code…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Smith v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Ginsberg v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Erznoznik v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.