| One, Inc. v. Olesen | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Submitted June 13, 1957 Decided January 13, 1958 | |
| Full case name | One, Incorporated, v. Otto K. Olesen, Postmaster of the City of Los Angeles |
| Citations | 355U.S.371 (more) 78 S. Ct. 364; 2L. Ed. 2d 352 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 241F.2d772 (9th Cir. 1957) |
| Holding | |
| Pro-homosexual writing is notper se obscene.United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Per curiam | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I;Comstock Act of 1873 | |
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), was alandmark decision of theUS Supreme Court forLGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazineONE violatedobscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing.[1]
ONE, Inc. (nowOne Institute), a spinoff of theMattachine Society, published the early pro-gayONE: The Homosexual Magazine beginning in 1953.[2] After a campaign of harassment from theU.S. Post Office Department and theFederal Bureau of Investigation, Los AngelesPostmaster Otto Olesen declared the October 1954 issue "obscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy" and therefore unmailable under theComstock Act of 1873.[3] In that issue, the Post Office objected to "Sappho Remembered", a story of a lesbian's affection for a twenty-year-old "girl" who gives up her boyfriend to live with her, the lesbian, because it was "lustfully stimulating to the average homosexual reader"; "Lord Samuel and Lord Montagu", a poem about homosexualcruising that it said contained "filthy words"; and (3) an advertisement forThe Circle, a magazine containing homosexual pulp romance stories, that would direct the reader to other obscene material.[4]
The magazine, represented by a young attorney who had authored the cover story in the October 1954 issue, Eric Julber,[5] brought suit in U.S. District Court seeking an injunction against the Postmaster. In March 1956, U.S. District JudgeThurmond Clarke ruled for the defendant. He wrote: "The suggestion advanced that homosexuals should be recognized as a segment of our people and be accorded special privilege as a class is rejected."[6] A three-judge panel of theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision unanimously in February 1957.[7] Julber filed a petition with theU.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 1957.
On January 13, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court bothaccepted the case and, without hearing oral argument, issued a terseper curiam decision reversing the Ninth Circuit.[3] The decision, citing its June 24, 1957,landmark decision inRoth v. United States354 U.S.476 (1957), read in its entirety:
241 F.2d 772, reversed.
Eric Julber for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard and Samuel D. Slade for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ ofcertiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476.[8]
On the same day, the court issued a similarper curiam decision also citingRoth inSunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, which concerned the distribution of twonudist magazines.
One, Inc. v. Olesen was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality[6] and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The justices supporting the reversal were Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Whittaker.[3] As an affirmation ofRoth, the case itself has proved most important for, in the words of one scholar, "its on-the-ground effects. By protectingONE, the Supreme Court facilitated the flourishing of a gay and lesbian culture and a sense of community" at the same time as the federal government was purging homosexuals from its ranks.[5]
In its next issue,ONE told its readers: "For the first time in American publishing history, a decision binding on every court now stands. ... affirming in effect that it is in no way proper to describe a love affair between two homosexuals as constitut(ing) obscenity."[5]
