Looking Back on the Allen Ginsberg Obscenity Trial 62 Years Later
That we can celebrate the victory of 'Howl' over the censors today was by no means a forgone conclusion when the obscenity charges were brought.
August 26, 2019 at 02:19 PM
8 minute read
The People v. Ferlinghetti: The Fight to Publish Allen Ginsberg's HOWL
By Ronald K. L Collins and David M. Skover
Rowman & Littlefield, $30
Sixty-two years ago this month, a decade before 1967's Summer of Love, San Francisco hosted the obscenity trial of Allen Ginsberg's epic poem, Howl, during the summer of 1957. The 1950s, and well into the 1960s, witnessed no shortage of censorship battles over the arts–even comic books. This particular battle focused on a small chapbook of obscure poetry, Howl and Other Poems, has reached quasi-mythological status in the history of the Beat Generation. The nationwide publicity generated by the trial single-handedly dragged Ginsberg and Howl into the public consciousness. The fight over Howl has been recounted many times and, in 2010, shortly after its 50th anniversary, a film of the trial made it to the big screen with James Franco in the role of Allen Ginsberg.
Today's global recognition and critical acclaim for Howl aside, that the trial itself still resonates in the legal community is no small accomplishment because the decision was never officially published. Moreover, it is unusual in and of itself for a municipal court trial judge to author a written opinion, which would be binding only upon those individuals within that municipality. As a consequence, People v. Ferlinghetti was never cited as precedent, or otherwise, in any subsequent legal proceeding. The slip opinion never found its way into the proverbial law books. While it was reproduced in numerous works about the trial, the subsequent version of the slip opinion was reported without the original internal legal citations.
One impressive feat the co-authors of "The People v. Ferlinghetti: The Fight to Publish Allen Ginsberg's HOWL," law professors Ronald K.L. Collins and David M. Skover, masterfully accomplished was to reconstruct the "as issued" 1957 opinion, with its original case citations fully restored. Collins and Skover are intimately familiar with the material because they covered the author, poem, and trial in their earlier, much broader work, "Mania: The Story of the Outraged and Outrageous Lives That Launched a Cultural Revolution." This slim new volume collects Mania's coverage of Howl and presents it in a straightforward, linear narrative. The text is just 105 pages but is amply supplemented with an addendum that includes the fully reconstructed opinion, a 2007 interview of Lawrence Ferlinghetti with Pacific Radio (on the trial's 50th anniversary), a timeline of Ferlinghetti's life and copious source notes on the material.
That we can celebrate Howl's victory over the censors today was by no means a forgone conclusion when the obscenity charges were brought. In fact, the trial was the government's second attempt to censor the book. Originally, in March 1957, the U.S. Customs Inspector seized 520 copies of the second printing of the book. The Customs Service had actually overlooked the first shipment of Howl and Other Poems, which had previously arrived without incident. After holding onto the shipment of books for two months, the United States attorney informed the customs inspector that he had decided not to prosecute the case. Therefore the seized copies of the book were formally released to the City Lights Bookstore.
In what might easily be viewed as an act of revenge, less than a week later two undercover police officers from the Juvenile Division purchased the copies of Howl from City Lights. Those purchases then became the basis of the obscenity prosecution. In no small irony, those initial copies of Howl had been printed with asterisks in place of the letters of the expletives contained in the book. Shigeoshi Murao, the clerk who sold the books to the undercover officers, was arrested and taken to jail for booking.
Ferlinghetti, the book's publisher, was at his cabin in Big Sur at the time and was not arrested. He turned himself in upon his return a week later. Allen Ginsberg, the author, was not even in the United States at the time and was not charged. Ginsberg was in Tangiers, Morocco, helping William Burroughs assemble his novel, Naked Lunch–a book which, itself, would be featured prominently in a number of future obscenity battles.
Ferlinghetti, concerned that the authorities might prosecute him for publishing Howl, had the foresight to line up the American Civil Liberties Union as pro bono counsel before the book was seized. The ACLU had, in turn, secured the services of Jake Ehrlich, one of San Francisco's most prominent criminal attorneys, to head the defense.
In all, with the addition of attorneys Al Bendich and Lawrence Speiser, a three-person pro bono legal team would defend Murao and Ferlinghetti. Where this book really excels is in the authors' discussion of the legal backbone of the process. It includes an analysis of the legal briefs filed by the defense team, trial strategy employed by both sides and the impact of Judge Horn's pre-trial rulings on the case. They also present the legal background of the prosecutor, defense counsel and the judge himself.
On the first day of the trial, Ehrlich suggested, and the judge readily agreed, that the case should be postponed until the judge had read Howl and the other poems at issue. The judge also dismissed the charges against Murao because, as the store clerk who rang up the purchases, the state could not prove the requisite criminal intent to win a conviction. For similar reasons, the judge also dismissed that portion of the charges that sought to hold Ferlinghetti responsible for the sale of copies of "The Miscellaneous Man," a book he had not published.
When the bench trial resumed after the week-long continuance, Judge Clayton Horn heard expert testimony from nine defense and two prosecution witnesses. A Sunday school teacher, Judge Horn had previously sentenced five shoplifters to watch "The Ten Commandments" and then write essays on the moral lessons they had learned from the film. Luckily, his openness to the legal issues presented in the Howl case did not align with the uniquely straight-laced disposition of the shoplifting trial. He permitted the witnesses to testify about the merits of the poem, but not whether they believed the poem was obscene. That would be his determination to make. He also permitted into evidence published reviews of the poem.
The case was the first to employ the new legal test for obscenity handed down by the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States that June. Roth required the challenged work be taken as a whole and sought to determine whether it had some redeeming social importance.
Roth's "utterly without redeeming value" test was a defense-friendly standard; the present-day formulation, taken from the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller v. California decision, asks a tougher question–whether it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Given the testimony of the defense's nine literary experts, it was not surprising that Judge Horn found Howl had value. "I conclude the book 'Howl and Other Poems' does have some redeeming social importance, and I find the book is not obscene."
My only cavil with the book's outstanding presentation of the Howl legal saga is the authors' attempt to refocus the narrative on Ferlinghetti's efforts to get the poem in print. While the details of his important contributions are welcome, the story was, and always will be, about the poem and its singular author, Allen Ginsberg–not the book's publisher. This isn't to detract from Ferlinghetti's bold decision to publish Howl–and his prescience to line up the ACLU to defend it. It is worth noting that included in the appendix is a transcript of his 2007 interview with Pacifica Radio to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the trial. Also worth a mention is that Ferlinghetti has just celebrated (in March) his 100th birthday!
The 2007 interview highlighted the paradoxical situation that Howl currently occupies. Freed from the ugly moniker "obscene," it is nevertheless still a censorship victim today. Not legally obscene, but merely "indecent," it can't be widely broadcast. Despite Judge Horn's decision, Howl can only be broadcast over the airwaves during late-night hours. Pacific radio and its flagship, WBAI, could not lightly ignore the threatened financial penalties that would be imposed by the FCC for a live broadcast. So instead of a live reading, Howl was simply posted on its website. This had not always been the case because Howl had often been broadcast over the airwaves in the years after Judge Horn's decision.
Following the Supreme Court's 1978 "indecency" decision, FCC v. Pacifica Radio, the FCC was emboldened to ramp up efforts to "clean-up" the airways. Ginsberg railed against the irony of increased censorship over the broadcast media, decades after the Howl obscenity battle had been won.
Since Ginsberg's 1997 death, Howl still cannot be broadcast outside the narrow late-night window for fear it could offend the sensibilities of children who might be listening. This is the ultimate irony because the FCC's justification is chillingly identical to that which was unsuccessfully proffered by the customs Inspector in 1957: "You wouldn't want your children to come across it."
Frank Colella is a clinical assistant professor at Pace University's Lubin School of Business. His law practice focuses on taxation, corporations and not-for-profit organizations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFor Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
4 minute readBenjamin West and John Singleton Copley: American Painters in London
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250