Gent v. State

←

Gent v. State
the Arkansas Supreme Court

→

In Gent v. State, 239 Ark. 474 (1965), the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a chancellor's finding that appellant Gent and other magazines were obscene and would be enjoined. Carleton Harris, C.J., wrote the court's opinion, id. at 475, and Sam Robinson, J., wrote a dissenting opinion, id. at 487. Justice Robinson correctly predicted, id. at 488, that the U.S. Supreme Court would immediately overturn Gent. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967) (per curiam).

2693203Gent v. State1965the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

239 Ark. 474

GENT v. STATE

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court

No. 5-3529.---Delivered: May 24, 1965.
Rehearing denied: Sept. 20, 1965.

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion Robinson

CONTINUANCE—RIGHT TO CONTINUANCE.—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.
APPEAL & ERROR—WAIVER OF PROCEDURAL ERROR.—Although alleged procedural error was committed, the case is decided on its merits because of appellants' request.
CRIMINAL LAW—"OBSCENITY" DEFINED.—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 pruient interest", which is the same language used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476.
CRIMINAL LAW—NATIONAL COMMUNITY STANDARD AS APPLIED TO OBSCENITY CASES.—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.
CRIMINAL LAW—OBSCENITY.—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.
STATUTES—CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT 261 OF 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.
INJUNCTION—NATURE & SCOPE OF RELIEF.—An injunction which banned pertinent magazines introduced into evidence but did not enjoin future issues held legal.
APPEAL & ERROR—CHANCELLOR'S FINDINGS—REVIEW.—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.

[Opinion of the court by Chief Justice CARLETON HARRIS. Dissenting opinion by Justice SAM ROBINSON, joined by Justice GEORGE ROSE SMITH.]

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse