unpleasant, uncouth, and tawdry"Many of the photographs were of nude male models, usually posed with some object in front of their genitals . . .; a number were of nude or partially nude males with emphasis on their bare buttocks . . . . Although none of the pictures directly exposed the model's genitals, some showed his pubic hair and others suggested what appeared to be a semi-erect penis . . .; others showed male models reclining with their legs (and sometimes their arms as well) spread wide apart . . . . Many of the pictures showed models wearing only loin cloths, `V gowns,' or posing straps . . .; some showed the model apparently removing his clothing . . . . Two of the magazines had pictures of pairs of models posed together suggestively . . .
Each of the magazines contained photographs of models with swords or other long pointed objects . . . . The magazines also contained photographs of virtually nude models wearing only shoes, boots, helmets or leather jackets . . . . There were also pictures of models posed with chains or of one model beating another while a third held his face in his hands as if weeping....
Our own independent examination of the magazines leads us to conclude that the most that can be said of them is that they are dismally unpleasant, uncouth, and tawdry. But this is not enough to make them 'obscene.'"
What a job! Yup, another Friday night reading old Supreme Court cases on line. (Uncouth?? - wtf?) It's fun to sift thru these things, and then wonder about the stuff that's not in there. This one had a favorable decision, allowing the bare buttocks and barely covered genitals that were "deliberately planned .. (to) appeal to the male homosexual audience" to continue to be sent thru the U.S. mail, but most puzzling to me is that it's a 6-1 decision (remember, there are 9 seats on the Court). So what reason did Frankfurter and White have for not participating in this case? And what happened to the copies of MANual that were at issue here? (My money's on Byron "Whizzer" White)