ONE, Inc., a spinoff of the Mattachine Society, published the early… It falls far short of dealing with homosexuality from the scientific, historical and critical point of view. 564, 568.

(Reprinted, New York: Mitchell Kennery: 190?) ", It is difficult to determine if the article contained on page 29 under the caption "Foreign Books and Magazines That Will Interest You", is an advertisement for the magazine "The Circle" or is merely information given by the publisher of "One" to its readers as to where to obtain other books and magazines that may be of interest. close. In 1958, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the nation's first pro-gay publication — ONE: The Homosexual Magazine — in its dispute with the federal government. The statute forbidding the importation of obscene books is not designed to fit the normal concept of morality of society's dregs, nor of the different concepts of morality throughout the world, nor for all time past and future, but is designed to fit the normal American concept in the age in which we live. Based upon our comments and observations heretofore given we hold that the record discloses no prejudicial error and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. § 1461, and the Findings of Fact set forth in Paragraph VI of the trial court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, are erroneous as a matter of law and fact.

Moreover, such articles are morally depraving and debasing. District Court decision for One, Inc. v. Olesen.
Such literature cannot be classed as historical, scientific and educational for any class of persons. Plaintiff delivered to the United States Post Office at Los Angeles, California, for transmission to various parts of the United States, several hundred copies of the October 1954 issue of "One", and was subsequently notified by the defendant that all copies so deposited for mailing were being withheld from dispatch for the reason that he considered the October 1954 issue of "One" obscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy, and as such constituted non-mailable matter under the provisions of Section 1461 of Title 18 U.S.C.A., and Section 36.2 of Vol.

The magazine under consideration, by reason of the articles referred to, has a primary purpose of exciting lust, lewd and lascivious thoughts and sensual desires in the minds of the persons reading it. Plaintiff also contends that it has been deprived of the equal protection of the laws. All of the evidence is in writing so we will review the entire evidence, giving due consideration to the findings and conclusions of the trial court. 1461, Title 18 U.S.C.A.

Judge Pope, in Burstein v. United States, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 665, 666, approved the following instruction defining obscene, lewd, or lascivious: "Matter is obscene, lewd, or lascivious, within the meaning of the quoted statute, if it is offensive to the common sense of decency and modesty of the community, and tends to suggest or arouse sexual desires or thoughts in the minds of those who by means thereof may be depraved or corrupted in that regard. At the outset it is well to dispel any thought that this court is its brothers keeper as to the type of reading to be indulged in. The October 1954 issue of "One" is not lewd, lascivious, obscene or filthy, under the standards set forth in 18 U.S. C.A.
The poem "Lord Samuel and Lord Montagu" is about the alleged homosexual activities of Lord Montagu and other British Peers and contains a warning to all males to avoid the public toilets while Lord Samuel is "sniffing round the drains" of Piccadilly (London). First Amendment law experts talked about One, Inc. v. Olesen*, a landmark free speech case, and its long-standing effect on later obscenity… Before BARNES and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, District Judge. Section 1461, Title 18 U.S.C.A. First Amendment law experts talked about One, Inc. v. Olesen*, a landmark free speech case, and its long-standing effect on later obscenity rulings. When the approved definitions and tests are applied to certain articles in the "One" magazine, it is apparent that the magazine is obscene and filthy and is therefore non-mailable matter. [355 U.S. 371, 372]". Briefly stated, the specifications of error made by plaintiff, raise but one question, namely: Whether or not the October 1954 issue of "One" is non-mailable matter under the provisions of Sec. 799, the Supreme Court approved the following instruction: "Now what are obscene, lascivious, lewd, or indecent publications is largely a question of your own conscience and your own opinion; but it must come — before it can be said of such literature or publication — it must come up to this point: that it must be calculated with the ordinary reader to deprave him, deprave his morals, or lead to impure purposes. This article is nothing more than cheap pornography calculated to promote lesbianism. 28 U.S.C.A. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It was said that the words "obscene", "lewd" and "`lascivious", as used in the Statute, signify that form of immorality which has relation to sexual impurity, and that it could not perceive of anything in the coarse and vulgar language used in the questioned letter, which was of a lewd, lascivious and obscene tendency, calculated to corrupt and debauch the mind and morals of those into whose hands it might fall. Although on its face the information in this article appears harmless, it cannot be said that the purpose is harmless. 29, Code of Federal Regulations (1949). It conveys information to the homosexual or any other reader as to where to get more of the material contained in "One.".

None the less, so long as statutes make use of such words as obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy and indecent, we are compelled to define such expressions in the light of today's moral dictionary, even though the definition is at best a shifting one. A panel of First Amendment law experts discusses [One, Inc. v. Olesen], a landmark free speech case, and its long-standing impact on later obscenity rulings. A lower court ruled in favor of the government and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with this ruling.

The point that the action of the defendant in refusing to transmit the magazine in the United States mails, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and unsupported by the evidence, is without merit. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. The lesbian's affair with her room-mate while in college, resulting in the lesbian's expulsion from college, is recounted to bring in the jealousy angle.