United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
“[W]hilst in many places the effect of Ulysses on the reader undoubtedly is somewhat emetic, nowhere does it tend to be an aphrodisiac.” – Judge John M. Woolsey, 1933“We think that Ulysses is a book of originality and sincerity of treatment and that it has not the effect of promoting lust. Accordingly it does not fall within the statute, even though it justly may offend many.” – Augustus Noble Hand, Second Ciruit Court of Appeals, 1934
“[The sexual passages] are, in fact, cathartic and calculated to allay rather than to excite the sexual instincts.” – Stuart Gilbert, friend of James Joyce
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
[...] or unconsciously into Google. It’s Justice Woolsey’s 80 year old decision in US v Ulysses. It’s Paypal’s TOS. And on and on and on. It’s a thousand things, big and little, [...]
January 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am
[...] namesake Anthony Comstock still cast a long shadow over our culture, and more than 80 years later, Justice August Hand’s unfortunate choice of word about the “intent to arouse” are still being mouthed as if they are an original [...]