Hicklin case
The Hicklin case, decided in 1868, was a significant legal ruling in Great Britain that established a far-reaching definition of obscenity. It arose from the publication of Henry Scott's pamphlet, *The Confessional Unmasked*, which criticized alleged immoral practices within the Roman Catholic Church. Following the seizure and destruction of the pamphlets by magistrates, the case escalated through the courts, ultimately leading to a decision by Chief Justice Alexander Cockburn. He defined obscenity based on its potential to "deprave and corrupt" individuals, particularly those deemed susceptible, a concept that became known as the Hicklin rule or Hicklin test.
This ruling had a substantial impact on obscenity laws, with its influence extending into the United States until 1957. The Hicklin rule allowed for the broad prosecution of obscenity, as it included material that merely had a "tendency" to corrupt. Critics noted that this approach neglected the tastes and interests of adults, often restricting them to content considered appropriate for children. The rule's hypothetical nature meant that even partial obscenity in a work could lead to the censorship of the entire piece. This standard remained in effect for seventy-five years, affecting numerous literary works before the U.S. Supreme Court shifted the criteria for obscenity in the late 1950s.
Subject Terms
Hicklin case
Date: 1868
Place: London, Great Britain
Significance: The decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Regina v. Hicklin established a test for obscenity (the Hicklin rule) that was long used in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States
In 1857 Great Britain’s Parliament passed Lord Campbell’s Act, which gave magistrates the power to seize and destroy obscene material. The Hicklin case of 1868 tested that act. Henry Scott, a fervent Protestant, published a pamphlet, The Confessional Unmasked, that was an exposé of alleged depraved practices within the Roman Catholic church. Magistrates seized 252 copies of the pamphlet and ordered their destruction. When Scott appealed, a court recorder named Hicklin revoked the order. When the government appealed Hicklin’s decision, Chief Justice Alexander Cockburn of the Court of Queen’s Bench reinstated the order for the pamphlets’ destruction. In so doing he defined what was meant by obscenity: “whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” This definition became known as the Hicklin rule, or Hicklin test. Though British in origin, it was used in the United States until 1957. Because of the breadth of the Hicklin rule, prosecutions for obscenity in the United States were easy to achieve for seventy-five years. Because it required only a “tendency” to deprave or corrupt, it swept broadly. Anyone could come under its scope. Furthermore, by merely hypothesizing into whose hands the material might fall, the rule extended its scope. The Hicklin rule expressly stated that it wanted to protect children. Thus, children who might tend to be depraved or corrupted, or into whose hands obscene materials might fall, were the main beneficiaries of the rule.
Such reasoning was, however, entirely hypothetical. Adult tastes and interests were simply not considered. Therefore under the Hicklin rule, the adult public could be reduced to reading what was deemed fit only for children, or the most susceptible persons. Furthermore, even if only a part of the material were considered obscene, the whole work could be pronounced obscene and thereby censored. Examples of works banned under this rule during its seventy-five year tenure in the United States include For Whom the Bell Tolls and From Here to Eternity. In 1957, in the cases Butler v. Michigan and Roth v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard to preclude only that material so obscene that it might have a negative influence on the average person.