MRS. MINUDRI SAID THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION HAD NAMED

THAT READING MATERIAL WHICH IS "PRURIENT" AS COMING WITHIN

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS

THAT IS, CALCULATED TO

INCITE TO SEXUAL DESIRE IN ITS PURPOSE AND ITS EFFECT.

WRS. THOMPSON ASKED, "WOULDN'T THIS DEPEND UPON THE PERSON?

A MORE SPECIFIC DEFINITION IS CRUCIAL."

DR. WALLACE DE ORTEGA MAXEY, FORMER EDITOR OF "SEX AND CENSORSHIP" MAGAZINE AND AUTHOR OF "MAN IS A SEXUAL BEING", INTERPOSED, "IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, THE COURT GIVES THE GENERAL TERM OF 'PRURIENT'. IT IS LEFT TO THE JURY TO DECIDE ON THAT PARTICULAR CASE. THE SAME BOOK CAN GO BEFORE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF GROUPS AND REACH TWO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. THIS IN MY MIND IS NO SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM."

"WITH THESE LEAGUES SETTING THEMSELVES UP, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT ANY GROUP OF CITIZENS HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO MAKE CERTAIN ADVOCATIONS, BUT DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFLUENCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ON THE TOTAL POPULATION= PEOPLE WHOSE IDEAS OF MORALITY MAY BE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT?"

"WE WOULD THUS BE SETTING UP AN INFALLIBLE CENSOR," DR. MAXEY SAID, "A STATE CHURCH. I CHALLENGE THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE ON MORALS."

CHARLES R. GARRY, ATTORNEY, POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE SUPREME COURT IS GREATLY DIVIDED ON CENSORSHIP. THERE HAVE BEEN STRONG OPINIONS WRITTEN ON BOTH SIDES," HE SAID.

"WE CANNOT PASS LAWS JUST FOR MINORS," HE STATED. "THE LAW HAS TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMON CITIZENRY."

HE REFERED TO THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL TO DELETE THE "WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY" CLAUSE IN THE OBSCENITY LAWS, SAYING, I AM DISTURBED AT ANY LAW THAT TAKES AWAY THE ELEMENT OF 'KNOWLEDGE'."

MR. GARRY POINTED OUT THAT A PUBLISHER OR AUTHOR IS NOT IN ANY POSITION TO KNOW HOW OTHER STATES MAY FEEL ABOUT A BOOK. WHAT MAY BE ACCEPTED HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO MAY BE CAUSE FOR A COURT TRIAL IN PENNSYLVANIA, FOR INSTANCE, "IF THERE IS

7