"THE MAGAZINE TAKEN AS A WHOLE.

This writer belie ves it is evident from a perusal of the entire magazine here in question that said magazine taken as a whole is in fact serious, responsible, and sincere. It is not, however, a completely intellectual and abstract work, in that it frankly tries to appeal to the 'average' reader, in that, for example, its serious and almost scholarly articles are attempted to be balanced by fiction and humor. It is evident, however, that the serious articles in the magazine (and even the fiction. therein can be said to be serious) are not inserted merely for purposes of window dressing, to vitiate other obscene material. Quite the opposite. is evident from a reading of the magazine: beginning with its very serious statement of purposes (Page 2), continuing through the article on The Law of Mailable Material, which attempts to explain to the layman in a very serious fashion a very technical body of law, and continuing through the article on Democracy' which is an article so uncompromising, so demanding, and so unrelievedly intellectual as to leave the conclusion that it could only appear in a magazine dedicated to very serious and high ideals.

"The fiction is similarly serious and sincere, and the broad humor of the poetry and the 'Gay Menagerie' are obviously comic relief' and not the major reasons for the magazine's publication.

"The dominant tone of the magazine, with all its imperfections of amateurism, is one of sincerity. It is, in fact, an attempt to grapple with a social problem of the deepest order, in terms comprehensible & palatable to the layman. It strives to create understanding of an extremely knotty social problem.

"In this regard the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in the case of Parmellee v. U.S., 113 Fed 2d 729, is of great importance. The Parmellee case involved a book on nudism, an activity also considered obscene by many. The book, however, was obviously sincere, even though illustrated by some photographs which, taken out of context, might be considered obscene. The court held, however, that it was obvious from a scrutiny of the book that its purpose was to increase understanding of a particular social phenomenon. In defining the tolerance which should be extended to such a work, the Court made the following observation, which is of extreme relevance in the incident case, and which is here set forth at length because of its impor-

tance.

. . . there are many unexplored areas of social science. If anything, there is needed today greater patience and greater tolerance concerning research in sociology than in medicine; looking to the day when social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians, chemists and other physical scientists do today. Democracy today needs the social scientists, both inside and outside the universities. It needs to free them to think with all possible penetration, wherever that thinking may lead. New ideas about human relations and institutional adjustment should be fully, honestly and hospitably analyzed, Society should be most deeply concerned not with ridiculing failures or condemning those whose findings it does not approve, but with aiding that small minority of pioneers whose work in the social studies is reaching up to new levels of scientific achievement. Such persons are to be found in universities, in government and in private life. No greater contribution to the disinterested comprehension of today's issues could be made than by affording those able men and women full opportunity to make their work genuinely effective.' (113 Fed 2d at 737)

9