HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg
2.28 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal memoir draft / transcript excerpt
File Size:
2.28 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (dated draft 4.2.12) by Alan Dershowitz, recounting a past appellate argument regarding obscenity and First Amendment rights. The text details an exchange with Judges Aldrich and Julian where Dershowitz argues that the *Stanley v. Georgia* decision should extend to movie theaters if proper warnings (prologues) are given to the audience. The page includes a humorous anecdote about a watchmaker/mohel and a hypothetical legal argument involving a 'Pornography Shop' in Boston.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Dershowitz | Attorney / Narrator |
Arguing a legal case regarding obscenity and film exhibition before judges.
|
| Judge Aldrich | Judge |
Expressing skepticism about Dershowitz's argument; tells an anecdote about his grandmother.
|
| Judge Julian | Judge |
Questioning Dershowitz about the 'prologue' and common sense regarding moviegoers.
|
| Judge Aldrich's Grandmother | Anecdotal figure |
Mistakenly watched a risqué film thinking it was a travelogue.
|
| Stanley | Legal figure / Hypothetical consumer |
Reference to the plaintiff in Stanley v. Georgia; used as an example of a consumer of adult materials.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown (Past legal proceeding)
Court hearing involving Alan Dershowitz arguing before Judge Aldrich and Judge Julian regarding obscenity laws and the screening of adult films.
Courtroom (likely Federal Court of Appeals given the judges)
Relationships (2)
Dershowitz arguing a case before Judge Aldrich.
Dershowitz responding to questions from Judge Julian.
Key Quotes (4)
"I perform circumcisions... Then why do you have clocks and watches in your window... What do you think I should put in my window?"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg
Quote #1
"If a store were to open in Boston which was simply marked 'Pornography Shop,'... I submit that necessarily if there is this right to exercise one’s freedom to read and see a film, there is necessarily the concomitant right to purchase it."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg
Quote #2
"MR. DERSHOWITZ: Precisely."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg
Quote #3
"JUDGE JULIAN: So this prologue is a lot of nonsense, just a gesture to try to wipe out-----"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,990 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
Judge Aldrich immediately expressed skepticism about the reach of my argument, suggesting that the Stanley decision wasn’t relevant to a movie theater. He told me about his grandmother who “once went to a movie entitled Sur Les Troits de Paris. She thought it was a travelogue. She didn’t after she got there of course…I heard about it.” I assured him that we had dealt with that problem by providing a “prologue” that advises the audience who are admitted only before the film begins what they are about to see:
“the story of a young girl who is trying to work out her relationships. There are a number of scenes which show the young girl and her lover nude. Several scenes depict sexual intercourse under various circumstances, some of them quite unusual. If you believe that you would be offended or embarrassed by the showing of such scenes, you are invited at this time to obtain a refund of your admission at the box office.”
As Judge Aldrich continued to press me about his grandmother’s sensibilities, I was reminded of the old Jewish joke about the man with the broken watch who goes into a storefront window and asks the man behind the counter to fix his watch. “I don’t fix watches. I perform circumcisions,” the man replied. “Then why do you have clocks and watches in your window,” the customer wondered. “What do you think I should put in my window?” the store owner responded.
I had that joke in my head when I offered the following argument to Judge Aldrich:
If a store were to open in Boston which was simply marked “Pornography Shop,” it had nothing in the window, it had no advertising, it was a place where people like Stanley could come and quietly and discreetly purchase their 8mm films, [I submit] that Stanley vs. Georgia would proscribe prosecution of that seller. I submit that necessarily if there is this right to exercise one’s freedom to read and see a film, there is necessarily the concomitant right to purchase it. But the state has a great interest in making sure that the purchasing is not done in a way that intrudes on sensibilities or intrudes on other legitimate interests.
The judges pressed me on whether obscene films, even when viewed in a restricted theater, could cause viewers to go out and commit crimes such as rape. I responded that if that were true, it would be just as likely—perhaps even more so—that a person watching such films alone in his basement would be influenced in that manner. I argued that Stanley had implicitly rejected that theory.
The questioning persisted, with Judge Julian wondering whether Judge Aldrich’s aunt was typical:
As a matter of common sense though, unless we are to be so gullible as to be incredibly gullible, don’t the great vast majority of the people who go to a theater to see a film like this know what they’re going to see?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: Precisely.
JUDGE JULIAN: So this prologue is a lot of nonsense, just a gesture to try to wipe out-----
98
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document