United States v. Orito 8212 69

Citation37 L.Ed.2d 513,413 U.S. 139,93 S.Ct. 2674
Decision Date19 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 70,70
PartiesUNITED STATES, Appellant, v. George Joseph ORITO. —69
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Syllabus

Appellee was charged with knowingly transporting obscene material by common carrier in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. The District Court granted his motion to dismiss, holding the statute unconstitutionally overbroad for failing to distinguish between public and nonpublic transportation. Appellee relies on Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542. Held: Congress has the power to prevent obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment, from entering the stream of commerce. The zone of privacy that Stanley protected does not extend beyond the home. See United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446. This case is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the indictment in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419; United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, supra, and this opinion. Pp. 141—145.

338 F.Supp. 308, vacated and remanded.

R. Kent Greenawalt, New York City, for appellant.

Solicitor Gen. Erwin N. Griswold for appellant on reargument.

James M. Shellow, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellee Orito was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 14621 in that he did 'knowingly transport and carry in interstate commerce from San Francisco . . . to Milwaukee . . . by means of a common carrier, that is, Trans-World Airlines and North Central Airlines, copies of (specified) obscene, lewd, lascivious, and filthy materials . . ..' The materials specified included some 83 reels of film, with as many as eight to 10 copies of some of the films. Appellee moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statute violated his First and Ninth Amendment rights.2 The District Court granted his motion, holding that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad since it failed to distinguish between 'public' and 'non-public' transportation of obscene material. The District Court interpreted this Court's decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967); and Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), to establish the proposition that 'non-public transportation' of obscene material was constitutionally protected.3

Although the District Court held the statute void on its face for overbreadth, it is not clear whether the statute was held to be overbroad because it covered transportation intended solely for the private use of the transporter, or because, regardless of the intended use of the material, the statute extended to 'private carriage' or 'nonpublic' transportation which in itself involved no risk of exposure to children or unwilling adults. The United States brought this direct appeal under former 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed.) now amended, Pub.L. 91—644, § 14(a), 84 Stat. 1890. See United States v. Spector, 343 U.S. 169, 171, 72 S.Ct. 591, 593, 96 L.Ed. 863 (1952).

The District Court erred in striking down 18 U.S.C. § 1462 and dismissing appellee's indictment on these 'privacy' grounds. The essence of appellee's contentions is that Stanley has firmly established the right to possess obscene material in the privacy of the home and that this creates a correlative right to receive it, transport it, or distribute it. We have rejected that reasoning. This case was decided by the District Court before our decisions in United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971), and United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 28 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971). Those holdings negate the idea that some zone of constitutionally protected privacy follows such material when it is moved outside the home area protected by Stanley.4 United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, supra, 402 U.S., at 376, 91 S.Ct., at 1408 (opinion of White, J.). United States v. Reidel, supra, 402 U.S., at 354—356, 91 S.Ct., at 1411—1412. See United States v. Zacher, 332 F.Supp. 883, 885—886 (ED Wis.1971). But cf. United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, supra, 402 U.S., at 379, 91 S.Ct., at 1409 (Stewart, J., concurring).

The Constitution extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home, just as it protects other special privacy rights such as those of marriage, procreation, motherhood, child rearing, and education. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453—454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 381 U.S., at 486, 85 S.Ct., at 1682; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925). But viewing obscene films in a commercial theater open to the adult public, see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, at 65—67, 93 S.Ct. 2628, at 2639—2640, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973), or transporting such films in common carriers in interstate commerce, has no claim to such special consideration.5 It is hardly necessary to catalog the myriad activities that may be lawfully con- ducted within the privacy and confines of the home, but may be prohibited in public. The Court has consistently rejected constitutional protection for obscene material outside the home. See United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, at 126—129, 93 S.Ct. 2665, at 2668—2669, 37 L.Ed.2d 500; Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, at 23, 93 S.Ct. 2607, at 2614, 37 L.Ed.2d 419; United States v. Reidel, supra, 402 U.S., at 354 356, 91 S.Ct., at 1411—1412 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 357 360, 91 S.Ct., at 1413—1414 (Harlan, J., concurring); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484—485, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1308—1309, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957).

Given (a) that obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment, Miller v. California, supra; Roth v. United States, supra, (b) that the Government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public commercial environment by preventing such material from entering the stream of commerce, see Paris Adult Theatre I, supra, 413 U.S., at 57—64, 93 S.Ct., at 2635—2639, and (c) that no constitutionally protected privacy is involved, United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, supra, 402 U.S., at 376, 91 S.Ct., at 1408 (opinion of White, J.), we cannot say that the Constitution forbids comprehensive federal regulation of interstate transportation of obscene material merely because such transport may be by private carriage, or because the material is intended for the private use of the transporter. That the transporter has an abstract proprietary power to shield the obscene material from all others and to guard the material with the same privacy as in the home is not controlling. Congress may regulate on the basis of the natural tendency of material in the home being kept private and the contrary tendency once material leaves that area, regardless of a transporter's professed intent. Congress could reasonably determine such regulation to be necessary to effect permissible federal control of interstate commerce in obscene material, based as that regulation is on a legislatively determined risk of ultimate exposure to juveniles or to the public and the harm that exposure could cause. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, supra, 413 U.S., at 57—63, 93 S.Ct., at 2635—2638. See also United States v. Alpers, 338 U.S. 680, 681—685, 70 S.Ct. 352, 353—355, 94 L.Ed. 457 (1950); Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 436—437, 45 S.Ct. 345, 346, 69 L.Ed. 699 (1925); Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325, 329 330, 36 S.Ct. 131, 132, 60 L.Ed. 308 (1915). 'The motive and purpose of a regulation of interstate commerce are matters for the legislative judgment upon the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction and over which the courts are given no control. McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, (24 S.Ct. 769) 49 L.Ed. 78; Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513, (57 S.Ct. 554) 555, 81 L.Ed. 772 and cases cited.' United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 115, 61 S.Ct. 451, 457, 85 L.Ed. 609 (1941). 'It is sufficient to reiterate the well-settled principle that Congress may impose relevant conditions and requirements on those who use the channels of interstate commerce in order that those channels will not become the means of promoting or spreading evil, whether of a physical, moral or economic nature.' North American Co. v. SEC, 327 U.S. 686, 705, 66 S.Ct. 785, 796, 90 L.Ed. 945 (1946).6

As this case came to us on the District Court's summary dismissal of the indictment, no determination of the obscenity of the material involved has been made. Today, for the first time since Roth v. United States, supra, we have arrived at standards accepted by a majority of this Court for distinguishing obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment, from protected free speech. See Miller v. California, supra, 413 U.S., at 23—24, 93 S.Ct. at 2614—2615; United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, supra, 413 U.S., at 130 n. 7, 93 S.Ct., at 2670 n. 7. The decision of the District Court is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the indictment in light of Miller v. California, supra; United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels, supra, and this opinion.

Vacated and remanded.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

We held in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22...

To continue reading

Request your trial
250 cases
  • United Artists Corporation v. Harris, Civ. A. No. CIV-73-498-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • August 23, 1973
    ...v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (decided June 21, 1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (decided June 21, 1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 93 S.Ct. 2789, 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (decided June 25, 1973); ......
  • Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1973
    ...the home be equated with a 'zone' of 'privacy' that follows a consumer of obscene materials wherever he goes. United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 37 L.Ed.2d 513; United States v. 12 200-Foot Reels of Super 8mm., 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500. Pp. (d) Preventin......
  • Pacifica Foundation v. F. C. C., 75-1391
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 16, 1977
    ...regulation, United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973). 11 To guide legislatures, the Court suggested two definitions of conduct that would satisfy the "patent offe......
  • Smith v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1977
    ...S.Ct. 2665, 2669-2670, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973) (importation of obscene material, 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a)); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 145, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 2679, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973) (movement of obscene material in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1462). In Hamling v. United States, 41......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking Democracy
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 63-1, March 2010
    • March 1, 2010
    ...States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973).United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971).United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971).Village Books et al. ......
  • Leave me alone! The delicate balance of privacy and commercial speech in the evolving do-not-call registry.
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 61 No. 1, December 2008
    • December 1, 2008
    ...38 CREIGHTON L. REV. 743, 747 (2005) (citing Semayne's Case, (1604) 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K.B.)). (50.) Accord United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 142 (51.) See, e.g., Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728, 737 (1970) ("The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT