In so doing the court reviewed and reinterpreted the state's obscenity statute (///. Rev. Slat., 1969, ch. 38, par. 11-20) in the light of the U.S. Supreme Court definition of obscenity as declared in Miller v. California. 413 U.S. 15 (1973). In that case the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a three-pronged test for obscenity:
1. whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Illinois Supreme Court
The Illinois court construed state law, at least in this case, to include or incorporate the first and second standards of the Miller
decision. However, the Illinois court chose not to use or rely upon the third standard. But the court did declare that the third guideline under Illinois law was that the material in question had to be judged "utterly without redeeming social importance" (Emphasis added).
The substitution of this guideline in testing for obscenity within Illinois seems to place a more stringent standard upon the prosecution than the U.S. Supreme Court guideline. The U.S. Supreme Court required demonstrating a lack of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (Emphasis added).
In light of the above analysis, it should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be addressing itself to hard-core pornography, which is made illegal. The offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated" (Emphasis added). The Illinois Supreme Court, however, found the magazines in question to be obscene where "abnormal sexual activity between two females is suggested" and where "male models are posed ... in such a way as to suggest that abnormal sexual activity is imminent" (Emphasis added). In effect, the Illinois Supreme Court seems to have rejected a plea of constitutional protection for so-called soft-core pornography. /C.P.R.
Federal District Court
Non-union printer
Judge Morgan of Federal District Court in Peoria found nothing in Illinois law which requires a union label on printing.
Tallman Robbins & Co. of Springfield had filed suit challenging the awarding of the printing contract for legislative documents to Phillips Brothers, Inc., a union printer. Tallman Robbins, a non-union printer, submitted the apparent low bid.
Judge Morgan's order (1/28/75) allowed the state to take no action except to award the printing contract to Tallman Robbins, which is now printing the legislative calendars, journals, digest, and bills for the House and Senate.
Phillips Brothers, one of the defendants, has filed an appeal which will be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, Chicago. ž
Circuit Court, 7th Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County
AFSCME v Walker, ISEA v. Walka, decided March 10, 1975
Circuit Judge Waldo Ackerman ruled that the state must grant $200 in back pay to state employees. His ruling covers two suits brought by employees unions. ž
154/Illinois Issues/May 1975