Memoirs v. Massachusetts

Clark, writing in dissent, argued that the other justices had misinterpreted Roth. Quoting from Roth, he said the test for obscenity was, "whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests." Clark also noted that he found the book, "too much even for me." He suggested that allowing "utterly without redeeming social value" to be the deciding factor would allow the "smut artist free rein."

Clark also examined the book and testimony. He concluded that it had "no substance," adding that the "sole response evoked by the book is sensual." He also suggested that the idea that pornographic materials may cause antisocial behavior should be incorporated into the social value test.

Harlan's dissent argued that the First Amendment permitted federal suppression of hard core pornography. While he agreed that Fanny Hill did not meet that definition, he said that the application of the First Amendment by the states allowed for a looser definition. Under his view, states could prohibit obscene material if they applied "criteria rationally related to the accepted notion of obscenity," and reached "results not wholly out of step with current American standards."

White concluded in his dissent that the social value test should not be applied separately from a determination of whether the book appealed to the prurient interest.