◆ SpookStack

Li ap 24 0-88 Material is obscene if it makes a certain appeal to the viewer. It is not gufficient that the material be "merely coarse, Vulgar, or indecent in the popular sense of those terms." United States v. Males, 51 Fed. 41, 43 (D. Ind. 1892) .22 Its Note 11 - cont'd rovisions now found in 19 U.8.C. §1305(a) (1952) and 18 ¥.8.C. eho (Supp. IV) "were part of a continuous scheme to suppress immoral articles and obscene literature and should so far as possible be construed together and consistently." United States v. One Package, 86 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1936). The Government urges, wever, that the audience to which the material is directed 4s relevant in a criminal prosecution under 18 U,8.C. §1461 (Supp. IV) since it bears on the cuestion of criminal intent, but not in a libel under 19 U.S.C. §1305(a) (1952) since intent is not there @ factor. To the extent, if any, that the One Package decision Goes not answer this contention, it is answered by the requirement of Roth that obscenity statutes be construed as narrowly as is possible to effectuate their -urpose without impinging on other interests. "The fundamental ‘‘reedoms of speech and press have eontributed greatly to the development and well-being of our free society and are indispensable to ite continued growth. Ceaseless vigilance is the watchword to prevent their erosion by Congress or by the States. The door berring federal and state intrusion into this area cannot be left ajar; it must be kept tightly @losed and opened only the slightest crack necessary to prevent encroachment upon more important interests." Roth v. United States, 394 U.8. &76, 488 (1957). (footnotes omitted). And see 3 note 12 see also Swear nv, United States, 161 U.$. 446, &50-) (1896); ean V. Waited States, 58 ¥. 24 128 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, oot U.3. 863 (1931); United States v. Wroblenski, 318 Ved. $9 E.D. Wis. 1902); ef. United States v. Limehouse, 285 U.3. 428 (1932). —s O, Afra, and text at footnote 26, infra.