People v. Richmond County News, Inc., 18 N.Y.2d 439 (1966)
Material is obscene if it is utterly without redeeming social value and appeals to prurient interest, assessed objectively under First Amendment standards.
Summary
Richmond County News, Inc. was convicted of violating Penal Law § 1141 for publishing an obscene magazine featuring male models. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the magazine lacked social value and was designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex. The dissent argued that the magazine, while vulgar, did not meet the definition of “hard core pornography” and that the majority improperly assessed the magazine based on its appeal to a specific deviant group without evidentiary support.
Facts
The defendant, Richmond County News, Inc., published a magazine containing photographs of nude or nearly nude male models.
The prosecution argued the magazine was obscene under Penal Law § 1141.
The magazine was sold in New York State.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at the trial level for violating Penal Law § 1141.
The appellate division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the magazine published by Richmond County News, Inc. is obscene under Penal Law § 1141 and First Amendment standards.
Holding
Yes, because the magazine, depicting nude or nearly nude males, is utterly without redeeming social value and appeals to a prurient interest in sex, thus meeting the definition of obscenity.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied the test for obscenity articulated in People v. Richmond County News, which requires determining whether the material is “utterly without redeeming social value” and appeals to a “prurient interest in sex.” The court determined the magazine lacked any artistic, literary, scientific, or educational value, emphasizing that its sole purpose was to exploit male nudity for commercial gain. The court found the depiction of male models was designed to stimulate the sexual desires of its viewers, thus appealing to prurient interest. The court distinguished this case from others involving female nudes previously held not to be obscene. It emphasized that the focus must remain on whether “the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex”. The court underscored the importance of protecting the community from obscene publications. Dissent: Chief Judge Fuld argued that the magazine, while vulgar, did not constitute “hard core pornography.” He asserted the majority mistakenly equated “offensiveness” with “prurient appeal”. He noted the pictures were no worse than those of female models previously deemed not pornographic. He also criticized the court for assessing the magazine’s appeal to a specific deviant group without sufficient evidence. He quoted Manual Enterprises v. Day, stating, “the most that can be said of [such magazines] is that they are dismally unpleasant, uncouth, and tawdry. But this is not enough to make them ‘obscene’”. Fuld asserted that First Amendment freedoms were too important to surrender to “speculations and suspicions about the prurient appeal of material to some * * * undefined person whose psyche is not known.”