Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Court held at pp. 76-77:-

"The Court must, therefore, apply itself to consider each work at a time. This should not, of course, be done in the spirit of the lady who charged Dr. Johnson with putting improper words in his Dictionary and was rebuked by him: 'Madam, you must have been looking for them'. To adopt such an attitude towards art and literature would make the courts a board of censors. An overall view of the obscene matter in the setting of the whole work would, of course be necessary, but the obscene matter, must be considered by itself and separately to find out whether it is 80 gross and its obscenity so decided that it is likely to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to influences of this sort and into whose hands the books is likely to fall. In this connection the interests of our contemporary society and particularly the influence of the book etc. On it must not be overlooked. A number of considerations may here enter which it is not necessary to enumerate, but we must draw our attention to one fact. Today our national and regional languages are strengthening themselves by new literary standards after a deadening period under the impact of English. Emulation by our writers of an obscene book under the aegis of this Court's determination is likely to pervert our entire literature because obscenity pays and true art finds little popular support. Only an obscurrent will deny the need for such caution. This consideration marches with all law and precedent on this subject and so considered we can only say that where obscenity and art are mixed, art must so preponderate as to throw the obscenity into a shadow or the obscenity so trivial and insignificant that it can have no effect and may be overlooked. In other words, treating with sex in a manner offensive to public decency and morality (and these are the words of our Fundamental Law), judged of by our national standards and considered likely to pander to lascivious, prurient or sexually precocious minds, must determine the result. We need not attempt to bowdlerize all literature and thus rob speech and expression of freedom. A balance should be maintained between freedom of speech and expression and public decency and morality but when the latter is substantially transgressed the former must give away.
We may now refer to Roth's 354 U.S. 476 case to which a reference has been made. Mr. Justice Brennan, who delivered the majority opinion in that case observed that if obscenity is to be judged of by the effect of an isolated passage or two upon particularly susceptible persons, it might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex and might become - unduly restrictive and so the offending book must be considered in its entirety. Chief Justice Warren on the other hand made 'substantial' tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires' as the test. Mr. Justice Harian regarded as the test that must 'tend to sexually impure thoughts'. In our opinion, the test to adopt in our country (regard being had to our community mores) is that obscenity without a preponderating social purpose or profit cannot have the constitutional protection of free speech and expression, and obscenity is treating with sex in a manner appealing to the carnal side of human nature, or having that tendency. Such a treating with sex is offensive to modesty and decency but the extent of such appeal in a particular book etc. are matters for consideration in each individual case."