United States v. William Jack Fesenmeyer

Ninth Circuit

United States v. William Jack Fesenmeyer

454 F.2d 280, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11701

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 21, 1972·No. 71-2500·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William Jack Fesenmeyer was convicted of transporting in interstate commerce obscene matter for sale and distribution (18 U.S.C. § 1465). On this appeal he argues that since, as the Supreme Court held in Stanley v. Georgia, *281 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), a person enjoys a right to receive and possess obscene material, he necessarily “holds a correlative right to make [such material] available” and hence the federal statute is likewise constitutionally infirm.

Such a reading gives Stanley “too wide a sweep.” United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351, 355, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1412, 28 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971), reh. denied, 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2223, 29 L.Ed.2d 703. As the Court explained in Reidel, a decision rendered at approximately the time that Fesenmeyer was convicted, “[w]hatever the scope of the ‘right to receive’ referred to in Stanley, it is not so broad as to immunize the dealings in obscenity in which Reidel engaged here — dealings which Roth [Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498) (1957)] held unprotected by the First Amendment.” Id.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

William Jack Fesenmeyer was convicted of transporting in interstate commerce obscene matter for sale and distribution (18 U.S.C. § 1465). On this appeal he argues that since, as the Supreme Court held in Stanley v. Georgia, *281 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), a person enjoys a right to receive and possess obscene material, he necessarily “holds a correlative right to make [such material] available” and hence the federal statute is likewise constitutionally infirm.

Such a reading gives Stanley “too wide a sweep.” United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351, 355, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1412, 28 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971), reh. denied, 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2223, 29 L.Ed.2d 703. As the Court explained in Reidel, a decision rendered at approximately the time that Fesenmeyer was convicted, “[w]hatever the scope of the ‘right to receive’ referred to in Stanley, it is not so broad as to immunize the dealings in obscenity in which Reidel engaged here — dealings which Roth [Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498) (1957)] held unprotected by the First Amendment.” Id.

Judgment affirmed.

United States v. William Jack Fesenmeyer, 454 F.2d 280, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11701 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

454 F.2d 280 (United States v. William Jack Fesenmeyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related