patently offensive

The appellant conducted a mass mailing campaign advertising the sale of illustrated books and a film described as adult material. After a jury trial he was convicted under California Penal Code § 311.2(a) for knowingly distributing obscene matter based on the mailing of five unsolicited advertising brochures to a Newport Beach restaurant. The brochures contained explicit pictures and drawings depicting sexual activity and genitals. This case was tried on the theory that California's obscenity statute incorporated the tripartite Memoirs test and the jury was instructed to apply contemporary community standards of the State of California. Both parties at trial assumed the community standards were those of the State of California; defense counsel did not object to the state's expert testimony on community standards or to the judge's instruction. Appellant raised for the first time on appeal the contention that application of state rather than national standards violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, Orange County, California, came before the Supreme Court of the United States for review as part of a group of obscenity cases in which the Court re-examined the standards for identifying obscene material that may be regulated by the States.

In order to combat child pornography, Ohio enacted Revised Code Annotated section 2907.323(A)(3). The statute prohibits any person from possessing or viewing material or a performance that shows a minor who is not the person's child or ward in a state of nudity, unless certain exceptions for bona fide purposes or parental consent apply. Columbus, Ohio police officers conducted a valid search of petitioner Clyde Osborne's home and found four photographs. Each photograph depicts a nude male adolescent posed in a sexually explicit position. Osborne was convicted of violating the statute and sentenced to six months in prison. An intermediate appellate court affirmed Osborne's conviction. The Supreme Court of Ohio likewise affirmed. Relying on its construction of the statute, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected Osborne's claim that the First Amendment prohibits states from proscribing private possession of child pornography. The court also found that the statute, as narrowed to require a lewd exhibition or graphic focus on the genitals, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The court held that scienter is an essential element of the offense. Osborne objected that the trial judge had not required the government to prove lewd exhibition and scienter as elements of the crime. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected these contentions because Osborne had failed to object to the jury instructions at trial and the court did not believe the failures amounted to plain error. The Ohio Supreme Court denied a motion for rehearing and granted a stay pending appeal. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in June 1989.

Hustler Magazine, Inc., a magazine of nationwide circulation, and its publisher Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari Liqueur advertisement in the November 1983 issue. The parody featured respondent Jerry Falwell and suggested that his first time sampling the liqueur occurred during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The parody included a disclaimer in small print that it was an ad parody not to be taken seriously. Falwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against Falwell on the privacy claim. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim but awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages from each petitioner on the emotional distress claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari given the importance of the constitutional issues involved.