American Museum of Natural History v. Keenan, C--1670
| Decision Date | 19 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. C--1670,C--1670 |
| Citation | 20 N.J.Super. 111,89 A.2d 98 |
| Parties | AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY et al. v. KEENAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Alfred I. Manson, Jr., Newark, for the plaintiff American Museum of Natural History (Pitney, Hardin & Ward, Newark, attorneys).
Robert L. Hood, Newark, for the plaintiff Guild Enterprises, Inc. (William J. Egan, Newark, attorney).
George B. Astley, Newark, for the defendants (Charles Handler, Newark, attorney).
The complaint in this case was filed by the American Museum of Natural History and Guild Enterprises, Inc., the latter a corporation which operates the Newsreel Theatre on Broad Street, Newark, against the Director of Public Safety of the City of Newark and the city, to restrain them from interfering with the exhibition of a film entitled 'Latuko' and for the return of the film which the defendants had confiscated.
The film, in Technicolor, was made in Africa in 1950 under the direction of Edward M. Queeny, a trustee of the museum, during an official American Museum African expedition into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.
The complaint is verified and supported by numerous affidavits of officials of the museum, educators, scientists, clergymen and laymen, the latter connected with outstanding educational and civic organizations. The affidavits state that the film is an authentic photographic record of the life, customs and ceremonies of the Latuko tribe and is reported with absolute fidelity, depicting in documentary form the actual day-by-day living of the tribe.
On motion of the plaintiffs and with the consent of the defendants, the film was exhibited in the courtroom. From my viewing of the film, the proofs and argument, I wholeheartedly agree with the plaintiffs' contention that 'there is nothing suggestive, obscene, indecent, malicious or immoral in the showing of the Latuko aborigines in their normal living state.' While it is true that the men have been photographed naked and the women naked above the waist, the exposure of their bodies is not indecent; it is simply their normal way of living. They are not shown in any attitude or function to which exception might justifiably be taken. In my opinion, only a narrow or unhealthy mind could find any depravity in the film. The nakedness of the natives is such an inconsequential factor in what is an absorbing and instructive documentation that the plaintiffs should be protected in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams Newark Theatre Co. v. City of Newark
...A. 868 (Ch.1926); Hygienic Productions v. Keenan, 1 N.J.Super. 461, 62 A.2d 150 (Ch.Div.1948), and American Museum of Natural History v. Keenan, 20 N.J.Super. 111, 89 A.2d 98 (Ch.Div.1952) , which underlies those holdings denying any power in the public officials to ban their commercial Rel......
-
Maryland State Bd. of Motion Picture Censors v. Times Film Corp.
...that an obscene thing is that which is sexually impure, pornographic or dirt for dirt's sake. In American Museum of Natural History v. Keenan, 20 N.J.Super. 111, 89 A.2d 98, 99, a bill was filed to restrain the Director of Public Safety of the City of Newark from interfering with the exhibi......
-
Adams Theatre Co. v. Keenan
...educational or welfare auspices. The decisions held that the officials had no power so to limit the presentations. In the American Museum of Natural History case the trial court viewed the film and found as a fact that 'there is nothing suggestive, obscene, indecent, malicious or immoral in......
-
City of Newark v. Licht, A--790
...body and exposure of others than by the open, unabashed disclosure of the whole nude figure. Cf. American Museum of Natural History v. Keenan, 20 N.J.Super. 111, 89 A.2d 98 (Ch.Div.1952). For example, the photographs in the Manual Enterprises case, as described in the opinion (370 U.S., at ......