Page:Gent Magazine v. State.pdf/1

474

5-3529


 * 1) C.—Appellant Gent's request that it be made a party to the appeal and its argument on the merits considered by the Supreme Court granted in view of chancellor's reply to its request for continuance.
 * 2) A.—Although alleged procedural error was committed, the case is decided on its merits because of appellants' request.
 * 3) C.—Act 261 of 1961 defines "obscenity" to mean "that to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to pruientprurient [sic] interest", which is the same language used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476.
 * 4) C.—Appellant's argument that "contemporary community standards" refers to national rather than local community held without merit in absence of conclusive determination by U.S. Supreme Court that national community standard must be applied.
 * 5) C.—Where the dominant theme in articles, stories and pictures in magazines appeals only to the coarse and base in man's nature, and any literary merit is entirely coincidental, such portrayal of sex appeals to the prurient interest.
 * 6) S A 261 1961.—Act 261 of 1961, as applied to the facts in this case held not to abridge freedom of speech and press, nor to deprive appellants of their property without due process of law.
 * 7) I.—An injunction which banned pertinent magazines introduced into evidence but did not enjoin future issues held legal.
 * 8) A.—Chancellor's decree that the magazines involved in the case were obscene and in violation of Act 261 of 1961 affirmed.

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court, First Division, Joseph Morrison, Chancellor; modified and affirmed.

Robert C. Downie, Edwin E. Dunaway, Gregory & Claycomb, for appellant.

Bruce Bennett, Attorney General, By: William L. Patton, Jr., Asst. Atty. General, for appellee. 