Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 6/26/1972

Kois v. Wisconsin

Citations

  • 408 U.S. 229
  • 92 S. Ct. 2245
  • 33 L. Ed. 2d 312
  • 1972 U.S. LEXIS 28

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1972 United States Supreme Court case

Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229 (1972), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the obscenity conviction of Milwaukee editor-publisher John Kois, whose underground newspaper _Kaleidoscope _ had published two small photographs of pictures of nudes and a sexually oriented poem entitled "Sex Poem" in 1968.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that, in the context in which they appeared, the photographs were rationally related to a news article which they illustrated and were thus entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection, and that the poem "bears some of the earmarks of an attempt at serious art " (whether successful or not), and thus was not obscene under the _Roth v. United States _ test ("whether or not the 'dominant' theme of the material appeals to prurient interest"). In the words of the concurring opinion of Justice William O. Douglas , "In this case, the vague umbrella of obscenity laws was used in an attempt to run a radical newspaper out of business and to impose a two-year sentence and a $2,000 fine upon its publisher. If obscenity laws continue in this uneven and uncertain enforcement, then the vehicle has been found for the suppression of any unpopular tract. The guarantee of free expression will thus be diluted and in its stead public discourse will only embrace that which has the approval of five members of this Court."[2]

As alluded to in Justice Douglas' opinion, by this time Kaleidoscope had already been driven out of business.

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kois_v._Wisconsin&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kois_v._Wisconsin&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ Kaleidoscope vol. 1, no. 20, pp. 16-17

  2. ↑ Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229 (1972).

Further reading

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kois_v._Wisconsin&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Further reading")
]

  • Hagle, Timothy M. (1991). "But Do They Have to See It to Know It? The Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions". The Western Political Quarterly. 44 (4). The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4: 1039–1054. doi :10.2307/448806 . JSTOR  448806 .

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kois_v._Wisconsin&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law

**First Amendment to the United States Constitution **

Unprotected speech

Strict scrutiny

Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines

Symbolic speech

versus conduct

Content-based
restrictions

Content-neutral
restrictions

Compelled speech

…

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that “Sex Poem,” an “undisguisedly frank, play-by-play account of the au- thor’s recollection of sexual intercourse,” must nevertheless be considered by the factfinder in “the context” of ten other poems published alongside it in the same newspaper
  • stating that courts “read [the Miller] test into federal obscenity statutes” including § 1470
  • “A quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication”
  • “A quotation. from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Douglas, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

157 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.