There have been others, of course-thousands of loyal friends and supporters who have stood up fearlessly and allowed themselves to be counted, who believed in themselves as homosexuals and in the not always tangible works of ONE. To these "proud and unashamed" homosexual men and women go the glory of the January 13th decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in favor of ONE Inc. vs. the U. S. Post Office on the matter of homosexual obscenity.

By winning this decision ONE Magazine has made not only history but law as well and has changed the future for all U. S. homosexuals. Never before have homosexuals claimed their right as citizens. Not even the Berdache, nor the Greeks, nor the Napoleonic Code, nor Wolfenden "recommendations," nor The American Law Institute "recommendations" have managed to mean so much to so many. ONE Magazine no longer asks for the right to be heard; it now exercises that right. It further requires. that homosexuals be treated as a proper part of society free to discuss and educate and propagandize their beliefs with no greater limitations than for any other group.

By simply not finding ONE Magazine obscene, the Supreme Court has completely and unanimously reversed the Post Office ban on the mailing of our October 1954 issue which is immediately once again available both on news stands and on order directly from us. The Supreme Court has also reversed the evil and immoral wording of the ruling of Judge Thurmond Clarke and later that of Appellate Judges, Barnes, Hamley, and Ross. The decision has further dealt a blow to the censorship activities of Los Angeles Postmaster Otto K. Olesen. The New York Times has this to say about the decision: "The court today reversed a post office ban on a magazine, One, which deals with homosexuality. The petition for review filed by the lawyer, Eric Julber of Los Angeles, had apparently raised only one question: was the magazine 'obscene' within the statute banning importation of obscene matter? The court's order appeared to answer: No.

"The decision, so interpreted, means that the Supreme Court is insisting on a rigorous, narrow definition of obscenity.' It means, as one lawyer put it, that 'the court is going to keep a real weather eye out itself to prevent censorship of anything but what might be called hard-core pornography"."

We wish to express our sincere thanks to each and every person who helped through contributions, through encouragement and in other ways to make possible this great victory.

17