Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Looking Back to Ulysses: A Case Study in Obscenity Law

11/2/2014

6 Comments

 
Picture
By Dan Spinelli

Dan Spinelli is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE).

Fitting for a work with parallels to The Odyssey, James Joyce’s Ulysses had a journey of its own. Wandering from Joyce’s beginnings with the novel in 1915 to its official publication in the U.S., the work finally reached “home” in 1933. [1] The ensuing 18 years proved to be a voyage marked by litigation, illicit publication, and more litigation…eventually producing one of the most classic defenses of the freedom to express and create works of artistic value.

The battle over Ulysses began in 1921, when Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap, publishers of The Little Review, were convicted for publishing “indecent matter” after serializing an especially scandalous chapter of Ulysses. [2] The Little Review had been serializing the work since March of 1918. [3]

When Anderson and Heap were first introduced to Ulysses, they were so enamored with the work that they swore to “print it if it’s the last effort our lives.” [4] Their noble effort ran into trouble, however, when they published the Nausicaa chapter. In this portion of the work, protagonist Leopold Bloom voyeuristically lusts after the young Gerty MacDowell. Joyce’s signature stream-of-consciousness style reveals the erotic nature of Bloom’s emotions in an intimate, overtly sexual manner.  Without looking at the novel’s merit in its entirety, the judges ruled against The Little Review, convicting Anderson and Heap on the charges of presenting obscene material in the Nausicaa chapter and fining its publishers $50 each.

As Marisa Anne Pagnattaro explains in her article, “Carving a Literary Exception: The Obscenity Standard and ‘Ulysses,’” Anderson and Heap fell victim to an unnecessarily strict obscenity standard in U.S. jurisprudence. [5] In the 1879 case of United States v. Bennett, the Southern District Court of New York found that “A book, to be obscene, need not be obscene throughout the whole of its contents, but, if the book is obscene, lewd, or lascivious or indecent in whole or in part, it is an obscene book within the meaning of the law.” [6] The district court relied on a tradition in English law, established in the 1868 case of Regina v. Hicklin, to determine obscenity based on the tendency of the matter in question “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” [7]

The dangerous standard of adjudicating the obscenity of a work based only on isolated passages finally came under attack in the New York Supreme Court with the 1922 case of Halsey v. New York Society, in which an agent of the New York Society for Suppression of Vice caught Ray Halsey selling an English translation of Mademoiselle de Maupin, the controversial novel by Théophile Gautier. The Court presciently decided that “no work may be judged from a selection of such paragraphs alone. Printed by themselves they might, as a matter of law, come within the prohibition of a statute…the book, however, must be considered broadly as a whole.” [8] The Halsey case inspired various federal judges to soften obscenity standards. With ambiguity now surrounding obscenity statutes in America, lawyers Morris Ernst and Alexander Lindey saw the waters ripe to reintroduce Ulysses into the legal arena as a way to challenge obscenity jurisprudence.

After a shipment of copies of Ulysses was seized under the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. filed suit in the Southern District of New York federal court. The landmark case of U.S. v. One Book Called “Ulysses” had begun.

B
ecause the shipment included unabridged copies of the novel, Ernst and Lindey could finally make a case for the literary merit of Ulysses as a whole, rather than defend certain scurrilous passages. Judge John M. Woolsey presided over the case. In one notable exchange with the U.S.’s attorney, Woolsey pointed out the realism of Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness technique, stating, “I must confess, that while listening to you I have been thinking at the same time about the Hepplewhite furniture behind you.” [9] The judge ultimately penned an eloquent defense of freedom of expression of the arts.

Abandoning the standard set forth in Hicklin, Woolsey advocated for an interpretation of a work of art’s obscenity in light of the entire work, and called for an adjustment of the obscenity standard to fit the book’s style. Joyce’s innovative technique, in Woolsey’s opinion, required a new standard of determining obscenity. Is Leopold Bloom’s attitude toward Gerty MacDowell described in a way that is “lascivious and indecent”, or is it merely a realistic representation of the thoughts of an insecure, cuckolded adult male? Woolsey, with wit and grace, chose the latter view. [10]

On appeal, the 2nd Circuit upheld Woolsey’s view and added a more expansive legal implication. In the Court’s view, “The same immunity should apply to literature as to science, where the presentation when viewed objectively, is sincere, and the erotic matter is not introduced to promote lust…” [11] In a similar manner to that of Woolsey, the appellate court saw value in Joyce’s innovations, concluding that “Art certainly cannot advance under compulsion to traditional forms, and nothing in such a field is more stifling to progress than limitation of the right to experiment with new technique”. [12]

While Ulysses broke new ground for authors’ freedom of expression, the fight against censorship was far from over. The Supreme Court eventually adopted Woolsey’s opinion in the 1957 case of Roth v. United States, in which the Court officially ended the use of the Hicklin test in American jurisprudence.  Conservative censors would yet have their way, with controversial works of art like Allen Ginsberg’s poem Howl still on the horizon. For now, however, Ulysses has won.

[1] “Ulysses is ruled not obscene.” 2014. The History Channel website
. Oct. 6 2014. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ulysses-is-ruled-not-obscene.

[2] Pagnattaro, Marisa Anne. “Carving a Literary Exception: The Obscenity Standard and ‘Ulysses.’” Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 217-240.
[3] "University at Buffalo Libraries." Case III: Seeing Ulysses into Print. SUNY Buffalo, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2014. http://library.buffalo.edu/pl/exhibits/joycebloomsday/caseIII/.
[4] Margaret Anderson, My Thirty Years’ War, New York: Covici, Friede, 1930, 174-75.
[5] Pagnattaro, Marisa Anne. “Carving a Literary Exception: The Obscenity Standard and ‘Ulysses.’” Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 217-240.
[6] United States v. Bennett, 24 Fed. Cas. 1093 (Cir. S.D.N.Y. 1879).
[7] Regina v. Hicklin, 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)
[8] Halsey v. New York Society for Suppression of Vice, 234 N.Y. 1 (1922).
[9] United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).
[10] Ibid.
[11] United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F.2d 705 (2nd Cir. 1934).
[12] Ibid.
Photo credit: Flickr user
Dennis Jarvis
6 Comments
Jania
1/29/2016 10:40:14 pm

Wonderfully informative article, this helped me immensely.

Reply
literaturereviewwritingservice.com/literature-review-apa-formatting link
5/2/2018 03:57:18 am

Make an effort not to think about the idea or subject or crucial essentialness of your rule and claim to be or dream to have the best control of your life so it is starting late garbage yet nothing else so individuals do need to center around their readiness.

Reply
maria link
6/3/2018 05:37:42 am

I am interested to wiriting about Round table. please share with me what type of matter need to write then I can research about that to give a great article. waiting for your response.

Reply
https://www.mbaessaywriting.net/ link
6/25/2018 01:10:27 am

Some people are really do not know how to write a cover letter and if you are one of them then this article is really for you.

Reply
https://www.annotatedbibliographymaker.com/enumerative-bibliography-example-definition/ link
7/22/2018 10:13:16 pm

Some of the finest case study files will be find in here and this obscenity law factor is one of them which you can use for yourself.

Reply
read here link
7/29/2018 12:10:04 am

The obscenity case is really something which you need to study as it could let you have those kind of knowledge which will be helpful.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​