Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-20583House OversightOther

Court dialogue on obscenity case involving Grove Press and alleged First Amendment misuse

The passage records a courtroom exchange featuring Judge Aldrich, Judge Julian, and attorney Alan Dershowitz discussing obscenity standards and profit motives. It offers no concrete leads, transaction Alan Dershowitz argues the film should be protected by the First Amendment despite alleged obscenity Judges question whether the case is driven by profit rather than free speech. Reference to Grove P

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017186
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage records a courtroom exchange featuring Judge Aldrich, Judge Julian, and attorney Alan Dershowitz discussing obscenity standards and profit motives. It offers no concrete leads, transaction Alan Dershowitz argues the film should be protected by the First Amendment despite alleged obscenity Judges question whether the case is driven by profit rather than free speech. Reference to Grove P

Tags

first-amendmentgrove-presscourt-hearingmedia-censorshipmedia-lawobscenitylegal-exposurehouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
4.2.12 WC: 191694 JUDGE ALDRICH: He’s looking after my grandmother who went to see Sur Les Toits De Paris. MR. DERSHOWITZ: The only valid basis for punishing obscenity ...is to protect people [like Judge Aldrich’s grandmother] from being offended, from having something thrust on them in an unwilling manner and also to protect youngsters. When I then advised the court that under my theory, the judges would not have to view the film. Judge Aldrich immediately interjected: “Are you trying to bribe us to decide the case so we don’t have to see the film?...I will admit that’s the best bribe I have ever been offered.” Judge Julian did not seem to understand my argument. He kept asking me whether I wanted the court to assume that I Am Curious Yellow was not “pornographic.” I tried to explain: “Tt’s exactly the opposite. We do not ask you to decide whether or not the film is pornographic. We are asking you to decide that the film shown in a nonobtrusive way, advertised in the way that it’s been advertised right from the beginning, with no hint, no suggestion of obscenity or prurience, played, if you wish, with the warning being given, although there have been no complaints by a single viewer of the film that he’s been offended—because your Honor is of course right: everybody knows what they’re going to see—exhibited in that manner, the film is protected by the First Amendment without regard to its contents.” Judge Julian then questioned me about whether this case was really about money, rather than freedom of speech, because Grove Press was a commercial distributor of films for profit: JUDGE JULIAN. These people are exhibiting this film for the box office receipts, are they not as a fact? Mr. DERSHOWITZ. The New York Times is selling its papers for the box office receipts as well. JUDGE JULIAN. Let’s talk about this film not the New York Times. Isn’t this film being exhibited for the primary purpose and perhaps...for the only purpose of getting money at the box office? Isn’t that the actual fact? Mr. DERSHOWITZ. Your Honors, that fact is utterly irrelevant, I would submit. JUDGE JULIAN. But is it the fact though? Mr. DERSHOWITZ. I don’t know. I can’t probe Mr. Rosset’s mind, who is the president of Grove Press...I think he probably has very mixed motives. JUDGE JULIAN. That’s what troubled me immensely, to see the First Amendment used for the sole and obvious purpose of making a profit and for no other purpose. 99

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.