◆ SpookStack

“SAD 24 0-88 in violation of §305(a) and that, if §305(a) is interpreted 60 as to prohibit the importation of the libelled material, the section violates the provisions of certain articles of the Constitution of the United States, Since I believe that §305(a) does not permit the exclusion of the material, I do not reach the latter contention, Thus, the question of "academic freedom," much bruited in the oral argument by claimant, does not arise in this case. . Both the Government and the claimant have moved for summary judgment. The Government's motion is supported by the photographs, bh ks, and articles themselves. For the purposes of this decision, I assume that the libelled material is of such a nature that, "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material take. as a whole appeals to prurient interest.*> The claimant « motion is supported by affidavits sworn to by the -resident of the Institute, .the Institute's Director of Field Research, the 3 Roth v. United states, 354 U.8. 476, 489 (1957). -3-