dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted on charges of circulating and publishing allegedly obscene motion pictures in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-921, which provides as follows:
“Whoever knowingly sells or offers for sale, or gives to another, or otherwise circulates or publishes or causes to be circulated or published, or has in his possession with intent to sell, loan, or give to another, or to otherwise circulate or publish or cause to be circulated or published, any obscene, lewd, indecent, or lascivious book, pamphlet, paper, movie films, drawing, lithograph, engraving, picture, photograph, model, cast, or any instrument or article of obscene, lewd, indecent or lascivious use, or advertises the same for sale, or writes or prints any letter, circular, handbill, card, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, when, where, how, or by what means any of the articles or things hereinbefore mentioned can be purchased or otherwise obtained or made, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year, or both. . .
It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit *994the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (dissenting opinion). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, § 28-921 is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the questions presented in the petition merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).