One, Inc. v. Olesen

• Article

• Talk

One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court for LGBT rights in the United States . It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazine _ONE _ violated obscenity laws , thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing.[1]

Contents

• 1 Factual background

• 2 Procedural background

• 3 Decision by U.S. Supreme Court

• 4 Similar decision

• 5 Impact

• 6 See also

• 7 References

• 8 Further reading

• 9 External links

Factual background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Factual background")

ONE, Inc. (now One Institute ), a spinoff of the Mattachine Society , published the early pro-gay ONE: The Homosexual Magazine beginning in 1953.[2] After a campaign of harassment from the U.S. Post Office Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation , Los Angeles Postmaster Otto Olesen declared the October 1954 issue "obscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy" and therefore unmailable under the Comstock Act of 1873 .[3] In that issue, the Post Office objected to "Sappho Remembered", a story of a lesbian's affection for a twenty-year-old "girl" who gives up her boyfriend to live with her, the lesbian, because it was "lustfully stimulating to the average homosexual reader"; "Lord Samuel and Lord Montagu", a poem about homosexual cruising that it said contained "filthy words"; and (3) an advertisement for The Circle, a magazine containing homosexual pulp romance stories, that would direct the reader to other obscene material.[4]

Procedural background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Procedural background")

The magazine, represented by a young attorney who had authored the cover story in the October 1954 issue, Eric Julber,[5] brought suit in U.S. District Court seeking an injunction against the Postmaster. In March 1956, U.S. District Judge Thurmond Clarke ruled for the defendant. He wrote: "The suggestion advanced that homosexuals should be recognized as a segment of our people and be accorded special privilege as a class is rejected."[6] A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision unanimously in February 1957.[7] Julber filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 1957.

Decision by U.S. Supreme Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Decision by U.S. Supreme Court")

On January 13, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court both accepted the case and, without hearing oral argument, issued a terse _per curiam _ decision reversing the Ninth Circuit.[3] The decision, citing its June 24, 1957, landmark decision in _Roth v. United States _ 354 U.S. 476 (1957), read in its entirety:

241 F.2d 772, reversed.
Eric Julber for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard and Samuel D. Slade for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of _certiorari _ is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. _Roth v. United States _, 354 U.S. 476.[8]

Similar decision

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Similar decision")

On the same day, the court issued a similar per curiam decision also citing Roth in Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, which concerned the distribution of two nudist magazines.

Impact

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Impact")

One, Inc. v. Olesen was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality[6] and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The justices supporting the reversal were Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Whittaker.[3] As an affirmation of Roth, the case itself has proved most important for, in the words of one scholar, "its on-the-ground effects. By protecting ONE, the Supreme Court facilitated the flourishing of a gay and lesbian culture and a sense of community" at the same time as the federal government was purging homosexuals from its ranks.[5]

In its next issue, ONE told its readers: "For the first time in American publishing history, a decision binding on every court now stands. ... affirming in effect that it is in no way proper to describe a love affair between two homosexuals as constitut(ing) obscenity."[5]

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: See also")

• Freedom of speech portal

• List of LGBT-related cases in the United States Supreme Court

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Inc._v._Olesen&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: References")

1. ↑ Geidner, Chris (June 19, 2019). "The Court Cases That Changed L.G.B.T.Q. Rights" . The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331 . Retrieved June 21, 2019.
2. ↑ "History" . www.onearchives.org. Retrieved April 9, 2018.
3. Jump up to: 1 2 3 Murdoch, Joyce; Price, Deb (May 8, 2002). "ONE Standard of Justice". Courting justice: gay men and lesbians v. the Supreme Court . Basic Books. pp. 27–50. ISBN  978-0-465-01514-6 . Retrieved October 9, 2011.
4. ↑ William N. Eskridge Jr. (1997). "Privacy Jurisprudence and the Apartheid of the Closet, 1946–1961" . Florida State University Law Review. Archived from the original on May 12, 2008. Retrieved January 14, 2008.
5. Jump up to: 1 2 3 Savage, David G. (January 11, 2015). "Supreme Court faced gay rights decision in 1958 over 'obscene' magazine" . Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 12, 2015. Julber's article was "You Can't Print It!", about how to steer clear of government censorship policies. He represented One, Inc. _pro bono _. In 2015 he was 90 years

…