Cain v. Kentucky/Dissent Harlan

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinions

United States Supreme Court

397 U.S. 319

Cain  v.  Kentucky

Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.

If this case involved obscenity regulation by the Federal Government, I would unhesitatingly reverse the conviction, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957). Even in light of the much greater flexibility that I have always thought should be accorded to the States in this field, see, e. g., my dissenting opinion in Jacobillis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 203, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964), suppression of this particular film presents a borderline question. However, laying aside my own personal estimate of the film, I cannot say that Kentucky has exceeded the constitutional speed limit in banning public showing of the film within its borders, and accordingly I vote to affirm the judgment below.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).