Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RABECK v. NEW YORK.

Former § 484-i of the New York Penal Law, which prohibited the sale of "magazines . . . which would appeal to the lust of persons under the age of eighteen years or to their curiosity as to sex or to the anatomical differences between the sexes," is unconstitutionally vague and it is no answer to say that it was adopted for the salutary purpose of protecting children.

Reversed.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, in seeking reversal of his conviction for selling "girlie" magazines to a minor under 18 years of age in violation of former § 484-i, New York Penal Law, argues among other grounds that the statute is impermissibly vague. We agree. While we rejected a like claim as to § 484-h in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, § 484-i in part prohibited the sale of "any . . . magazines . . . which would appeal to the lust of persons under the age of eighteen years or to their curiosity as to sex or to the anatomical differences between the sexes. . . ." That standard in our view is unconstitutionally vague. "Nor is it an answer to an argument that a particular regulation of expression is vague to say that it was adopted for the salutary purpose of protecting children. The permissible extent of vagueness is not directly proportional to, or a function of, the extent of the power to regulate or control expression with respect to children." Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 689.

Section 484-i was repealed by N.Y. Laws 1967, c. 791. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 631-632, n. 1.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, would reverse for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 650.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court on the premises stated in his separate opinion in Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 704. In addition, he considers it a particularly fruitless judicial act to strike down on the score of vagueness a state statute which has already been repealed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RABECK v. NEW YORK
(May 27, 1968)