Today in Supreme Court History: January 13, 2014

1/13/2014: NLRB v. Noel Canning argued.

 

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We recently had this case, so it seems more appropriate to note two other cases decided OTD.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) concerned control of a school newspaper.

The dissent is sympathetic since it opposed censorship of student articles. But the majority noted various details that make the move sound fairly reasonable, including as a matter of sound editorial judgment. White for the majority, Brennan for the dissent.

One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) is simply this:

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. Roth v. United States.

The summary is more notable: "Speech in favor of homosexuals is not inherently obscene."

A judgment that LGBTQ people are not "inherently obscene" is ultimately the path to justice. And now the justices will hear an important oral argument about trans athletes and probably more.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/tomorrows-scotus-case-is-not-just

[Dan Schiavetta]

From captcrisis.com:

One, Inc. v. Olsesen, 355 U.S. 371 (decided January 13, 1958): Citing its recent analysis in Roth v. United States, Court reverses Circuit Court and vacates obscenity conviction (ironically in Roth the Court had affirmed an obscenity conviction). The Circuit Court decision, 241 F.2d 772, is quite a jolt, a nuanced essay on the changing definition of obscenity (“morals are not static like the everlasting hills, but are like the vagrant breezes to which the mariner must ever trim his sails”) which turns into a gastrointestinal eruption (the magazine is “obscene and filthy”). At issue was a magazine called “One” which had fiction, articles and photographs dealing with homosexuality (both sexes). An article on “One” is at https://daily.jstor.org/one-the-first-gay-magazine-in-the-united-states/

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (decided January 13, 1988): First Amendment does not preclude school board from redacting on privacy grounds pages of high school newspaper on the lives of its pregnant students (even though names were changed) and on inappropriateness grounds mentions of sexual activity and birth control (the board’s action probably resulted in more unwanted pregnancies)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(the board’s action probably resulted in more unwanted pregnancies)"

So, conceivably (so to speak), there are people alive today who would never have existed if the school hadn't censored the paper in the Hazelwood School District?

Why not track down everyone born in the vicinity within nine months of the censorship?

(Just kidding about that part)