Kois v. Wisconsin

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Kois v. Wisconsin
ArgueDate =
ArgueYear =
DecideDate = June 26
DecideYear = 1972
FullName = John Kois v. Wisconsin
USVol = 408
USPage = 229
Citation = 92 S.Ct. 2245, 33 L.Ed.2d 312
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = Nude photographs illustrating a newspaper article they accompany and to which they are rationally related are entitled to freedom of the press protection as incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment
SCOTUS = 1972-1975
PerCuriam = yes
Majority =
JoinMajority =
Concurrence =
JoinConcurrence =
Concurrence2 =
JoinConcurrence2 =
Concurrence/Dissent =
JoinConcurrence/Dissent =
Dissent =
JoinDissent =
Dissent2 =
JoinDissent2 =
LawsApplied =

Kois v. Wisconsin ussc|408|229|1972 was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the obscenity conviction of Milwaukee editor-publisher John Kois, whose underground newspaper "Kaleidoscope" had published two small photographs of pictures of nudes and a sexually-oriented poem entitled "Sex Poem" in 1968. The Supreme Court ruled that in the context in which they appeared the photographs were rationally related to a news article which they illustrated, and were thus entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection; and that the poem "bears some of the earmarks of an attempt at serious art" (whether successful or not), and thus was not obscene under the "Roth v. United States" test ("whether or not the 'dominant' theme of the material appeals to prurient interest"). In the words of the concurring opinion of Justice William O. Douglas, "In this case, the vague umbrella of obscenity laws was used in an attempt to run a radical newspaper out of business and to impose a two-year sentence and a $2,000 fine upon its publisher. If obscenity laws continue in this uneven and uncertain enforcement, then the vehicle has been found for the suppression of any unpopular tract. The guarantee of free expression will thus be diluted and in its stead public discourse will only embrace that which has the approval of five members of this Court." [http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/U-S-Supreme-Court/Kois-v-Wisconsin-408-U-S-229-1972-%253CI%253E-per-curiam-%253C-I%253E/2100-19987748%2C01.htm]

As alluded to Justice Douglas' opinion, by this time "Kaleidoscope" had already been driven out of business.

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Hagle |first=Timothy M. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1991 |month= |title=But Do They Have to See It to Know It? The Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions |journal=The Western Political Quarterly |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=1039–1054 |doi=10.2307/448806 |url= |accessdate= |quote=