◆ SpookStack

he: is not whether the fruits of the research will be valuable to soosety."° The Tariff Act of 1930 provides no warrant for either customs officials or this court to sit in review of the decisions of scholars as to the bypaths of learning upon which they shall tread, The question is solely whether, as to those persons who wili see the libelled material, there 4e a reasonable probability that it will appeal to their ‘0 "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social Amportance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the (Constitutional; guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more amportant interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without social importance. eo. Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life,: nas “paste been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern." Roth v. United States, 3545 U.8. 476, 484, (1957) (footnote omitted). I believe that the statement above quo eoncerning the rejection of obscenity must be interpreted in the light of the widespread @istribution of the material in Roth. While I do not reach the Constitutional issues posed by claimant in this case I may mote that, since it is taken as proved in this ease that the libelled material will not, in all probability, appeal to the prurient interest of those into whose hands it will come, ZI eannot comeive of any interest which Congress might have Antended to protest by prohibiting the importation of the material by the claimant.