Mass. Supreme Court Slaps 'Fanny'

looks like Fanny's next stop is Washington.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-2 vote, Thursday upheld began on Memoirs of a Woman of (Fanny Hill) form circulation in The Commonwealth. Attorney for G. P. Sons, publisher of John 18th-century novel about a , said yesterday that they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme immediately.

Justice John V. Spalding '20, writing of the four-man majority on the Court, that Fanny Hill meets all of the established court tests of : the "prurient interest," " offensiveness," and "social value" .

Selecting the testimony in Suffolk only Superior Court of several English professors, including M. Bullitt '43, professor of English, that the book is of literary and historic merit, the justices said that "minimum literary values does not mean it is of any social importance."

Bullitt has said he wants to include Fanny Hill on the reading list in English 141, his course on "The English Novel before 1800."

Deprived of Protection

While he conceded that "the fact that Memoirs arouses sexual thoughts and desires is not, in itself, sufficient to deprive it of its constitutional protection," Spalding wrote that "we have no doubt that the dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest."

The opinion was a surprise because in 1962 the same court set a precedent when it said that Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer was not "obscene, impure and indecent" and therefore could circulate. Justice Spalding was then a member of the majority.

Justice Arthur E. Whittemore '17 dissented in the Fanny Hill case, pointing out that "there is no obligation upon any member of the general public to read this book" if it is free. "Freedom to read means that such a hook as this is to be available to those who wish to read it," he said.

Citing testimony of the literary experts, Whittemore argued that Fanny Hill is less a problem than many four-letter-word books that have not been banned. He said it "appears of slight, if any, weight, and not worth the attention that efforts to ban inevitably bring."

Cutter Offended

In another dissent, Justice R. Ammi Cutter '22 said that while "the book seems to me offensive and unpleasant in numerous respects," he would allow Fanny Hill to circulate except among person under the age of 18.

Fanny has recently been allowed to circulate in New York but banned in New Jersey.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-2 vote, Thursday upheld began on Memoirs of a Woman of (Fanny Hill) form circulation in The Commonwealth. Attorney for G. P. Sons, publisher of John 18th-century novel about a , said yesterday that they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme immediately.

Justice John V. Spalding '20, writing of the four-man majority on the Court, that Fanny Hill meets all of the established court tests of : the "prurient interest," " offensiveness," and "social value" .

Selecting the testimony in Suffolk only Superior Court of several English professors, including M. Bullitt '43, professor of English, that the book is of literary and historic merit, the justices said that "minimum literary values does not mean it is of any social importance."

Bullitt has said he wants to include Fanny Hill on the reading list in English 141, his course on "The English Novel before 1800."

Deprived of Protection

While he conceded that "the fact that Memoirs arouses sexual thoughts and desires is not, in itself, sufficient to deprive it of its constitutional protection," Spalding wrote that "we have no doubt that the dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest."

The opinion was a surprise because in 1962 the same court set a precedent when it said that Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer was not "obscene, impure and indecent" and therefore could circulate. Justice Spalding was then a member of the majority.

Justice Arthur E. Whittemore '17 dissented in the Fanny Hill case, pointing out that "there is no obligation upon any member of the general public to read this book" if it is free. "Freedom to read means that such a hook as this is to be available to those who wish to read it," he said.

Citing testimony of the literary experts, Whittemore argued that Fanny Hill is less a problem than many four-letter-word books that have not been banned. He said it "appears of slight, if any, weight, and not worth the attention that efforts to ban inevitably bring."

Cutter Offended

In another dissent, Justice R. Ammi Cutter '22 said that while "the book seems to me offensive and unpleasant in numerous respects," he would allow Fanny Hill to circulate except among person under the age of 18.

Fanny has recently been allowed to circulate in New York but banned in New Jersey.

Justice John V. Spalding '20, writing of the four-man majority on the Court, that Fanny Hill meets all of the established court tests of : the "prurient interest," " offensiveness," and "social value" .

Selecting the testimony in Suffolk only Superior Court of several English professors, including M. Bullitt '43, professor of English, that the book is of literary and historic merit, the justices said that "minimum literary values does not mean it is of any social importance."

Bullitt has said he wants to include Fanny Hill on the reading list in English 141, his course on "The English Novel before 1800."

Deprived of Protection

While he conceded that "the fact that Memoirs arouses sexual thoughts and desires is not, in itself, sufficient to deprive it of its constitutional protection," Spalding wrote that "we have no doubt that the dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest."

The opinion was a surprise because in 1962 the same court set a precedent when it said that Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer was not "obscene, impure and indecent" and therefore could circulate. Justice Spalding was then a member of the majority.

Justice Arthur E. Whittemore '17 dissented in the Fanny Hill case, pointing out that "there is no obligation upon any member of the general public to read this book" if it is free. "Freedom to read means that such a hook as this is to be available to those who wish to read it," he said.

Citing testimony of the literary experts, Whittemore argued that Fanny Hill is less a problem than many four-letter-word books that have not been banned. He said it "appears of slight, if any, weight, and not worth the attention that efforts to ban inevitably bring."

Cutter Offended

In another dissent, Justice R. Ammi Cutter '22 said that while "the book seems to me offensive and unpleasant in numerous respects," he would allow Fanny Hill to circulate except among person under the age of 18.

Fanny has recently been allowed to circulate in New York but banned in New Jersey.

Selecting the testimony in Suffolk only Superior Court of several English professors, including M. Bullitt '43, professor of English, that the book is of literary and historic merit, the justices said that "minimum literary values does not mean it is of any social importance."

Bullitt has said he wants to include Fanny Hill on the reading list in English 141, his course on "The English Novel before 1800."

Deprived of Protection

While he conceded that "the fact that Memoirs arouses sexual thoughts and desires is not, in itself, sufficient to deprive it of its constitutional protection," Spalding wrote that "we have no doubt that the dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest."

The opinion was a surprise because in 1962 the same court set a precedent when it said that Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer was not "obscene, impure and indecent" and therefore could circulate. Justice Spalding was then a member of the majority.

Justice Arthur E. Whittemore '17 dissented in the Fanny Hill case, pointing out that "there is no obligation upon any member of the general public to read this book" if it is free. "Freedom to read means that such a hook as this is to be available to those who wish to read it," he said.

Citing testimony of the literary experts, Whittemore argued that Fanny Hill is less a problem than many four-letter-word books that have not been banned. He said it "appears of slight, if any, weight, and not worth the attention that efforts to ban inevitably bring."

Cutter Offended

In another dissent, Justice R. Ammi Cutter '22 said that while "the book seems to me offensive and unpleasant in numerous respects," he would allow Fanny Hill to circulate except among person under the age of 18.

Fanny has recently been allowed to circulate in New York but banned in New Jersey.

Bullitt has said he wants to include Fanny Hill on the reading list in English 141, his course on "The English Novel before 1800."

Deprived of Protection

While he conceded that "the fact that Memoirs arouses sexual thoughts and desires is not, in itself, sufficient to deprive it of its constitutional protection," Spalding wrote that "we have no doubt that the dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest."

The opinion was a surprise because in 1962 the same court set a precedent when it said that Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer was not "obscene, impure and indecent" and therefore could circulate. Justice Spalding was then a member of the majority.

Justice Arthur E. Whittemore '17 dissented in the Fanny Hill case, pointing out that "there is no obligation upon any member of the general public to read this book" if it is free. "Freedom to read means that such a hook as this is to be available to those who wish to read it," he said.

Citing testimony of the literary experts, Whittemore argued that Fanny Hill is less a problem than many four-letter-word books that have not been banned. He said it "appears of slight, if any, weight, and not worth the attention that efforts to ban inevitably bring."

Cutter Offended

In another dissent, Justice R. Ammi Cutter '22 said that while "the book seems to me offensive and unpleasant in numerous respects," he would allow Fanny Hill to circulate except among person under the age of 18.

Fanny has recently been allowed to circulate in New York but banned in New Jersey.