inion which accompanies his judgment
pivots in part on the clear and present danger rule. It reads: "The only
clear and present danger to be prevented by section 524 that will
satisfy both the Constitution and the current customs of our era is the
imminence of the commission of criminal behavior resulting from the
reading of a book. Publication alone can have no such automatic effect."
This obviously overlooks the primary purpose of governmental
interference with the distribution of "obscene literature," namely to
protect immature minds from contamination. Dealing with this point Judge
Bok protests against putting "the entire reading public at the mercy of
the adolescent mind." Should, on the other hand, the adolescent mind be
put at the mercy of the uninhibited reading tastes of an elderly federal
judge?
[118] 310 U.S. 88 (1940).
[119] 310 U.S. 106 (1940).
[120] Thornhill _v._ Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102, 105 (1940).
[121] Drivers Union _v._ Meadowmoor Co., 312 U.S. 287 (1941); _See also_
Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Alliance _v._ Board, 315 U.S. 437
(1942).
[122] Drivers Union _v._ Meadowmoor Co., 312 U.S. 287, 293 (1941).
[123] American Federation of Labor _v._ Swing, 312 U.S. 321 (1941);
Bakery and Pastry Drivers _v._ Wohl, 315 U.S. 769 (1942); Cafeteria
Employees Union _v._ Gus Angelos, 320 U.S. 293 (1943).
[124] Teamsters Union _v._ Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 474 (1950).
[125] Giboney _v._ Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).
[126] Building Service Union _v._ Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532 (1950).
[127] Hughes _v._ Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460 (1950).
[128] Carpenters Union _v._ Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 728 (1942).
[129] Giboney _v._ Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).
[130] Ibid. 501, 502, citing Fox _v._ Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277,
which predates any suggestion of the clear and present danger formula.
_See_ above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Section CONTRASTING
OPERATION OF THE COMMON LAW RULE, above.]
[131] Lincoln Union _v._ Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525 (1949); A.F. of
L. _v._ American Sash Co., ibid., 538.
[132] Auto Workers _v._ Wis. Board, 336 U.S. 245 (1949). In Teamsters
Union _v._ Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 (1950), injunctions by State courts
against picketing of a self-employer's place of business to compel him
to adopt a union shop were sustained.
[133] Thomas _v._ Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).
[134] Ibid. 566.
[135] Patterson _v._ Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (
|