(1815), in the case of The Commonwealth v. Jesse Sharpless and others, 2 Serg. & R. 91–92, 97, 101–104 (1815), rendered the grand jury indictment as follows:
Jesse Sharpless … John Haines … George Haines … John Steel … Ephriam Martin … and Mayo … designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires … in a certain house there … scandalously did exhibit and show for money … a certain lewd … obscene painting, representing a man in an obscene … and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth, and other citizens of this commonwealth … offending … [the] dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.2478
Judge Duncan delivered the court’s verdict:
The defendants have been convicted, upon their own confession, of conduct indicative of great moral depravity. … This court is … invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society. …
Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence, it follows, that an offence may be punishable, if in its nature and by its example, it tends to the corruption of morals; although it be not committed in public.
The defendants are charged with exhibiting and showing … for money, a lewd … and obscene painting. A picture tends to excite lust, as strongly as writing; and the showing of a picture is as much a publication as the selling of a book. …
If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of the city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. In the eye of the law, this would be a publication, and a most pernicious one.2479
In a demonstration of the strong feelings of the court on this issue, a second Justice, by the name of Judge Yeates, added to the pronouncement of the court’s decision:
Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indictable, yet where the offence charged is destructive of morality in general. … it is punishable at common law.
The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. …
The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences. …
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.2480