User:Srs00c/sandbox

The Case
One Inc. V. Olesen was a case determining if One Inc. was an obscene magazine and if it should be discontinued. In 1950 to the 1970’s courts became more involved in the nations obscenity laws. They were asked to interpret postal restrictions of delivering obscene material. It was manly toward the homosexual audience. Otto K. Olesen was a post master and told the federal postal to seize and discontinue mailing ONE: The Homosexual Magazine. Olesen informed the publisher that he thought the magazine was “obscene, lewd, lascivious, and filthy.” The publisher sued because it violated the first and fifteenth amendment. They went to court and the lower court had to determine if the October 1954 issue was obscene as Olesne had made it to be. The Federal court ruled in the favor of the government because they believed the magazine contained stories and poems that were intended to arouse gay audiences. The story that really stood out to them in the October 1954 magazine was "The Climax" "This artical is nothing but cheap pornography calculated to promote lesbianism." Judge John Rolly Ross stated that the aim of the magazine was to provide educational and informative material but, it fail to do that by containing obscene and filthy material. The Supreme Court on October 9, 1957 thety secretly voted 8 to 1 about accepting One Inc, V Olesen case. On January 10, 1958 the justices voted aloud for reversing the appeals court decision against ONE.One January 13, 1958 "The petition for writ of certorari is granted and the judgement of the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. On January 14, 1958 two Supreme Court rulings made front page. A one column headline read, "NUDIST MAGAZINES WIN MAIL RIGHTS." The won a vicotry not only over the Post Office but also over the FBI. 1958 flung open the door for gay publications. Encouraging gays and lesbians to come out and hold their head high.

Background
Roth V. United States had led to greater tolerance for gay literature, as evidenced in the Supreme Court's ruling in One, Inc V. Olesen. Roth V. Untied States case was applied to ONE's case's obscenity standard. Julber stated that anyone that knowingly broke the obscenity law could be fined 5,000$ and/or be imprisoned for five years. That ONE was illegal. The FBI was coordinating a national effort to identify and oust homosexuals holding federal jobs. 1957, the ACLU's board of directors defended the constitutionality of laws that made homosexual behavior criminal. Homosexuals couldn't claim their rights as citizens.

Reference
Murdoch, Joyce, and Debb Price. "ONE Standard of Justice." Courting Justice : Gay Men and Lesbians V. the Supreme Court. New York: Basic Books, 2001. 27-50. Print. Meezy, Susan Gluck. "Litigating against Censorship. "Queers in Court : Gay Rights Law and Public Policy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2007. 20-24. Print. "One, Inc. v. Olesen (9th Cir. 1957)." In Encyclopedia of the First Amendment, edited by John R. Vile, David L. Hudson Jr., and David Schultz. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009. http://library.cqpress.com/efa/encyfa_817.1. Web.