Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
... you just tell me a little bit about where you were born and your family, and just a little bit about your childhood, in your growing-up years?

Eric Julber:
Okay, let's stop for a minute. Let me try this with hearing aids, again.

Mason Funk:
Okay.

Andrew Black:
We're rolling.

Mason Funk:
Okay.

Eric Julber:
Usually these make conversation a little too crackly.

Mason Funk:
I see. All right.

Eric Julber:
But this seems to be all right.

Mason Funk:
Okay, good. So tell me a little bit about ... just very briefly where you were born, and a bit about your childhood.

Eric Julber:
Well, I was born in-

Mason Funk:
Just talk to me here. Ignore the eye.

Eric Julber:
I was born in an ancient era, 1925, in New York City. My parents had emigrated from Russia, thank God, and first stopped in New York. My father, he got a job with a jazz band in New York. The band was Ben Bernie and his orchestra. You're not old enough to remember Ben Bernie, but he was very famous. Amazingly enough, my father was a violinist, and yet Ben Bernie had a jazz band, so it shows you how music changes over the years. I think they came out in 1922 or something like that. And then I was born in 1925, and then about that time, my father and the other musicians in the band got some very exciting news, that way out west at a place called Hollywood, California, they had invented something called "talking pictures," so they were gonna need music for these pictures. My father bought an automobile, and the other musicians did too, and we drove cross-country in 1925, and wound up in Santa Monica, California, and that's where I grew up. That was an ideal place in those days. Still is very nice, but has gotten very luxurious.

Keywords: California; Childhood; Music; New York; New York City; New York, NY; Santa Monica, CA; Upbringing

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
How did you decide that you wanted to go into law?

Eric Julber:
Well, in school I was a debater. They had something called "debating teams." I don't know if they even still have them. Our team would debate another school on a given topic. When I was there ... It was resolved the powers of the federal government should be increased. One week you would argue the affirmative, and next week you'd argue the negative. So it was very good training for being a lawyer, arguing any side of a given question. As George Bernard Shaw observed once, the theory of our law is that if you put the two worst liars you can find arguing two sides of a given question, the truth will emerge. That's entirely our theory of law. It works better than any other.

Mason Funk:
When did you decide to make it your profession then?

Eric Julber:
Well, there wasn't any alternative. I needed a job. First I tried to get a newspaper job, because I had worked on the school newspapers, and so on. But there weren't any jobs, so I went to law school, and the rest is history.

Mason Funk:
Now-

Eric Julber:
I always thought at that time the kind of law I would like to practice is civil liberties—freedom of the press and freedom of speech and so on— which was a very noble ambition, but there weren't any jobs doing that, so I got what work I could find working for other lawyers and tried to get cases of my own, but I wasn't too successful there.

Mason Funk:
Why were you particularly interested in civil liberties in constitutional law?

Eric Julber:
Oh, it's a very interesting subject. I've always been very serious about that.

Mason Funk:
On more intellectual grounds, or would you say spiritual, moral?

Eric Julber:
All of the above, yeah.

Mason Funk:
Is there a particular article in our Constitution, our Bill of Rights—or amendment—that you are particularly attached to? One that you would say, "This is ..."?

Eric Julber:
No, I like them all. And the amendments. Those are the important ones, the amendments. " Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech," and so on. Those are the important ones.

Keywords: Career; Civil Liberties; Constitutional Law; Debate; Education; Law; Law School

Partial Transcript: Eric Julber:
Like all young lawyers do, I circulated among all the people that I knew: "Let it be known that if anybody knew of a civil liberties case, let me know, because I'd like to take it." And amazingly enough, one came along right off the bat. I had tried a criminal case. A young newspaperman in LA who covered the case was favorably impressed with how I tried the case, and he said, "Eric, I have these friends who might have trouble with the post office getting their publications through the mail, and they might need a lawyer. Would you be interested?" I said, "Sure, that's a civil liberties case, so get us in touch." And he did, and they came. They were the publishers of a little magazine—eight or ten pages—called "ONE," O-N-E. I don't know why they called it that. But they came out to see me, and the postmaster general at that time, a man named Otto K. Olesen here in LA, was refusing to transmit their magazine through the mail. It was subtitled "The Homosexual Magazine," which was very daring in those days. I guess that was about 1945, '48. So they needed a lawyer to sue Otto K. Olesen and try to get the federal court to order him to transmit this through the mail on grounds of freedom of speech. And he said, "No, it's obscene," though I looked at the magazine. There wasn't anything sexy about it. So I said, "Sure, I'll take the case." And they said, "The problem is, we can't pay anything." I said, "I don't care. I'd be happy to have the case. Sounds very interesting. I just make one stipulation: if I have to go back to Washington, DC, to the Supreme Court to argue the case, you have to pay my way." So they said, "Sure, we'll do that." So that's how it started. I filed a case. It was called One v. Olesen. When my fellow lawyers found out that I had taken this, it caused great amusement. I got a lot of ribbing. I had to explain I am not gay, never have been, never expect to be, but it made an interesting civil liberties case.

Mason Funk:
What-

Andrew Black:
[inaudible] just a second here. [inaudible] adjustment here.

Mason Funk:
Sure. What ... When your colleagues were ribbing you, was it-

Eric Julber:
Oh, just typical male locker-room humor. I can't make it any more specific than that.

Keywords: Civil Liberties; Gay; Law; ONE; ONE Inc.; ONE Magazine; ONE v. Olesen; ONE: The Homosexual Magazine; Otto K. Olsen; Queer

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
Now tell me, because few people know first-hand what it was like in the 1950s, what it was like for gay men and women, for homosexuals in general in society. The atmosphere was very different than today.

Eric Julber:
Oh, that's for sure, yeah.

Mason Funk:
So tell me what it was like.

Eric Julber:
Well, I'm no expert on this subject, because I'm not gay. Didn't even have any gay friends. So this came to me out of the blue. And I'm not an expert on the sociology of the period. I know that my wife, who is from Germany, is an avid watcher now of a series on TV called Mad Men, and it's about ad agencies back in the '50s. She got here in the '50s, and she thinks it's very accurate, that it was very repressive, not flamboyant, the way it is today.

Mason Funk:
And the overall feeling was it was just out of sight, out of mind?

Eric Julber:
Oh, yeah. With regard to homosexuality, absolutely. For example, when I got this case ... My clients knew that I was right out of school so I didn't have any experience, and I told them, "I am inexperienced, but I am a good lawyer and I'll make a good argument for you." But I told them, "I'm gonna try to get some help. I'm gonna call the American Civil Liberties Union. They'd been around for a long time. It's a very wealthy organization, and they have won some famous cases." So I called them, and I spoke to a guy there who answered, and I explained what the case was. It involved something called "The Homosexual Magazine." And I said, "Well, would you help me on this? I'm not experienced, and I have to know where to file and how to file and what to say." And whoever it was that I was talking to waited for a minute, and then he said, "No, I don't think we'd be interested in that." So I figured it's just too hot for them to handle. So that was the end of their involvement. And over the years, as the case went on and it went from one court to another, and I kept losing, they never volunteered to get back in and give me a hand. They never did take an interest.

Keywords: ACLU; American Civil Liberties Union; Homophobia; Ignorance

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
You filed your lawsuit, and as you said, you lost twice in a row. But tell me, what was the basis of your argument? What was the essence of your argument at the district court level? What did you say to try to prove-

Eric Julber:
That this is just a matter of the right of these people to make their case, to speak about their problems and their aspirations the way other people do. That was it.

Mason Funk:
In your lawsuit, how did you defend against the charge that the magazine was obscene?

Eric Julber:
Well, that's what the whole thing was about. They claimed that it was obscene. One of the judges ... Well, the first judge to hear this was named Thurmond Clarke. And he just said it's obscene right from the start, because homosexuality at that time was a crime, and these people are criminals and writing about their crimes, so it's per se obscene. My argument was they have a right to discuss their problems and their aspirations like anybody else does. But the district court and the first court of appeal that we went to disagreed. The court of appeal, the judge there found a phrase in one of the articles that appeared there, a humorous poem, and it talked about ... so forth, who got into trouble with the law. "His ins and outs with various Scouts had created a mild sensation" ... and that judge pointed that out as an obscene reference to homosexual conduct. I couldn't see it, having no experience with the subject, really. So that's all that I can report on that. But I was sure that if we ever got to the US Supreme Court, where the judges would be more sophisticated ... I was sure that we would win because it was such an obvious free-speech situation. But nobody else saw it that way till we got the US Supreme Court.

Mason Funk:
Was it a difficult ... Tell me about the decision-making process once you lost in the district court and you lost in the appellate court.

Keywords: Argument; Civil Rights; Court; First Amendment; Free Speech; Homophobia; Obscenity; Thurmond Clarke

Partial Transcript: Eric Julber:
Yeah, you've got an uphill fight. But the next and last step would be to go to the Supreme Court, which we did. And my clients lived up to the terms of our contract. They paid for my trip to Washington. In those days, you had to personally go back to Washington and be introduced to the members of the Supreme Court, and enter the bar of the Supreme Court, and then you could file a case and argue a case. So I went through all that.

Mason Funk:
What else do you remember about that trip?

Eric Julber:
One thing that was pretty clever, if I do say so now, and that is: in my luggage I carried with me about 20 copies of the magazine in question that the government claimed was obscene. And when I got to the Supreme Court and filed our case-

Mason Funk:
Can you hold one second, please?

Inge Kessler:
Yeah, this is automatic. This has nothing to do with me. I don't know how to turn it off.

Mason Funk:
Okay. So let's back up a little bit. I asked you what you remember about the trip, and you said you did something ...

Eric Julber:
Yeah, I took about 20 copies of ONE Magazine back there, and I went to the Supreme Court building and asked to see the law clerk for one the judges there, who was the most liberal on the court. Can't remember his name right now.

Mason Funk:
Was it Brennan?

Eric Julber:
Pardon me?

Mason Funk:
Brennan?

Eric Julber:
No, no. No, this was long before Brennan. William O. Douglas. There were all the buttons here for all the offices, and I looked up the law clerk for Justice Douglas and pushed that button. And a young man came out, and I said, "Hello. This is a little outside of the formal law, but I've filed this case involving this magazine that they claim is obscene, so you'll be getting it and I thought I'd bring all these extra copies for you. And in the meantime if you were interested, you may want to show this to other law clerks here." So I got sort of a little advance push on the case by doing that. And there's nothing wrong with that. You're just bringing an exhibit, as it's called in law.

Mason Funk:
What was the advantage of having the law clerks look at the magazine? What was your strategy?

Eric Julber:
Well, law clerks are very influential on the judges that they work for. Law clerks, they're not secretaries. They're actually young lawyers who do research and they advise the court as to what they found in the research and what their opinions are. So it's very important to get law clerks on your side. That's what I tried to do here. And I don't know if I succeeded, but I never heard back, and I never got a word of criticism from the court for having brought those magazines back there, so obviously they were put to some good use back there.

Mason Funk:
Now, what was the result of this? What happened? How did the Supreme Court respond?

Eric Julber:
Well, amazingly enough, without me having to go back to Washington to argue the case ... I had argued it in briefs that we filed back there. But then you can also make a personal appearance, but I didn't have to do that. To my great amazement, about three or four months passed, and all of a sudden in the mail, I got a notice from the US Supreme Court that the writ that I had asked for ... I had asked for a writ, which means a compulsion on the lower court to do something that the higher court tells it to do. So I had asked them to order the lower court, to order Otto K. Olesen, to transmit this through the mail. And all of a sudden I got this notice that the Supreme Court was going to issue this to Mr. Olesen, and order him to transmit this through the mail, which was a total victory. It's what we had started out to do. So it was a big surprise. And then years passed ... Oh, and ... At the same time, the Supreme Court and the lower courts were hearing some challenges by another magazine, called Sunshine & Health. In those days, you couldn't just go to the bookstore or magazine stand and buy pictures of naked women unless you pretended to be interested in the art and science of nudity, and therefore there was this magazine Sunshine & Health, and it showed these beautiful maidens at the beach with nothing on. Well, they too had run into trouble with the postmaster in their area. It was back east somewhere. So they had a lawsuit going, and as I say, three or four months passed and suddenly got a notice through the mail ... in both cases, One v. Olesen and Sunshine & Health, ordering these postmasters to transmit these magazines under the doctrine of freedom of speech. So that was the victory, and I guess the part about the homosexual magazine didn't get as much attention as did Sunshine & Health because more people were interested in heterosexual nudism. But anyway, there it happened.

Mason Funk:
You say you were very surprised by the Supreme Court's decision.

Eric Julber:
Well, pleasantly surprised.

Mason Funk:
So they didn't actually issue a ruling.

Eric Julber:
Oh, yeah.

Mason Funk:
They did?

Eric Julber:
Yeah.

Keywords: Free Speech; Law; Law Clerks; ONE Magazine; ONE v. Olesen; Obscenity; SCOTUS; Sunshine and Health; Supreme Court; William O. Douglas

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
Did you wish that the case had become bigger or did-

Eric Julber:
Yes.

Mason Funk:
Tell me about that.

Eric Julber:
Yes. I wish that we had argued the case in person, but they just went ahead and issued it on the basis of the briefs that I wrote and the lawyer for Sunshine & Health ... And by the way, he and I had no collaboration at all. I didn't even know about him preceding ... I'm assuming it's a him. It might have been a her.

Mason Funk:
What was the makeup? Do you remember the US Supreme Court in that era ... we're talking late 1950s. Was it considered a conservative court?

Eric Julber:
Oh, yeah, sure.

Mason Funk:
Tell me about that. What was the court like? Who were the justices? What was its overall tone?

Eric Julber:
Well, I'm no expert on the history of the Supreme Court, but in general it was very conservative.

Mason Funk:
Now there was another case, and it was also an obscenity case. What do you remember about that? I know it was a long time ago.

Eric Julber:
I can't remember anything about it except it was the sale of a book, and I can't remember what the book was, so I can't tell you any more than that. But that was going at that time also. It was obviously a time of change.

Mason Funk:
We had just been through the McCarthy era. Do you think that there was a sense that we had gone too far in one direction? Was this kind of like part of a course correction, would you say in the ...

Eric Julber:
I can't tell you. I don't know about that.

Mason Funk:
Well, let me see. So in your opinion—just your opinion—what were the long-term effects of this decision by the US Supreme Court?

Eric Julber:
In the ONE case? Well, I think it was the first crack in the iron curtain. There really was an iron curtain until that time over anything to do with homosexuality. And this was the first crack in the curtain, and it's gone on, multiplied since then. We're in a much different era now. So that is historically interesting because it was the first glimmer of discussion of that subject.

Mason Funk:
Looking back for you, now fifty-six years later, and looking back over your entire career—long, successful career—how does that case appear to you now? How do you view that case in the overall trajectory of your career?

Eric Julber:
Oh, very interesting. I'm very glad I got it. Glad the way it turned out the way it did. It was a very interesting experience for a young lawyer who wanted to get involved in civil liberties. Got a case that turned out to be bigger than I had anticipated.

Mason Funk:
Some people have said that that case, quote-unquote, "put gay people on the path to freedom," this obscenity case. Do you agree with that, and if so, why?

Eric Julber:
It's hard for me to pass judgment on that. But yeah, yeah, I think that's true. It played a role. As I say, it was the first crack in the curtain.

Keywords: Change; Civil Rights; Freedom; Gay Rights; Law; ONE v. Olesen; Obscenity; Pride; SCOTUS; Supreme Court

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
And what is the importance of free speech? Why is that so critical?

Eric Julber:
So that you have a chance to argue on very controversial subjects that otherwise might be closed off by public opinion: for example, about homosexuality. Until this ONE case came along, this was sort of beyond the pale, to discuss that. So I think it was quite important as opening the subject.

Mason Funk:
So what you're saying maybe is: in an open society, people have to be free to talk about controversial topics?

Eric Julber:
Right. Right. And now with the recent tend towards legalization of gay marriage, I notice there's already a push to permit marriage between related people, which would otherwise be considered incestuous. Father and daughter, things like that. I just heard about a case like that today, where they have been separated for fifteen or twenty years and sort of by accident got back together and fell in love, and now they want to get married. So this is going to present a very interesting case for a court back east, where this occurred. And maybe some young lawyer right out of school will take that case. Let's find out what happens. But that's how the law advances, case by case, like this.

Andrew Black:
[inaudible].

Mason Funk:
Okay. I'm thinking about the friends of yours, the colleagues who teased you, and yet you won. Did they ever come back and say, "Congratulations"?

Eric Julber:
Oh, yeah, sure.

Mason Funk:
Tell me about that.

Eric Julber:
Well, just that.

Keywords: Advancement; Civil Rights; First Amendment; Free Speech; Human Rights; Law

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
Well, let me me ask you: how did your friends who had teased you ... How did they react to the news of your victory?

Eric Julber:
Well, it's always great when a lawyer wins his case, so I got congratulations.

Mason Funk:
They take you out for a drink or anything like that?

Eric Julber:
No. No, all this took place in the central courthouse in Los Angeles, which is one big room where all the cases are called every day, so this is where you see all the other lawyers that are engaged in cases. You're in a big courtroom and you don't have too much of a chance to talk, but it's the closest to socializing that lawyers do, unless you go to a club or something like that. So it was in that context.

Mason Funk:
Were you married at the time? Were you married at the time this all happened?

Eric Julber:
Oh, yes.

Mason Funk:
How did your wife-

Eric Julber:
I've always been married. Just to different women.

Mason Funk:
We'll talk about that in a minute, actually. But what was your wife's reaction at the time?

Eric Julber:
Indifferent. Happy that I had a case and was keeping busy.

Mason Funk:
Do you think this case had any long-term effect on your career?

Eric Julber:
Yes, for the better. It's always impressive when someone has gone to the United States Supreme Court and won a unanimous decision. That's very rare. So that was a significant achievement, but whether it really affected my career or not, I can't say.

Mason Funk:
With all the changes that have happened since that time ... You've watched gay people become more visible. You've seen so many changes. What observations do you have about this rather significant change that has happened from the 1950s until now for gay and lesbian people?

Eric Julber:
That's far beyond my expertise or knowledge. I don't know, because I'm not gay. Never have been. Really, my only association with them has been in this case, so I really can't say. You'd have to talk to a sociologist to get a judgment on that.

Keywords: Career; Celebration; Law; Lawyer; Pride; Supreme Court

Partial Transcript: Mason Funk:
Well, before we finish, I wonder if you would talk to me about these photographs.

Eric Julber:
These are-

Mason Funk:
Tell me about that time in your life.

Eric Julber:
Well, this is my last summer of law school. I went up to the Sierras and got a job as a guide on a pack train, and got some good pictures on the John Muir Trail. And it's still there. It hasn't changed. I saw a movie on television—Netflix— and they have a movie about going down the John Muir Trail. This is something I did in 1950.

Mason Funk:
And what do you remember? What are the most distinct memories you have of that summer?

Eric Julber:
Oh, lots of fun. Really great and unique. I recommend it to anybody who has the time and ability to get up there.

Mason Funk:
Now would you do me a favor and just hold the photographs so the camera can ... If you can just hold it like this, and he's gonna zoom in on it. So, in order ... from you, briefly. And now please talk about this photograph.

Eric Julber:
That's my wedding picture to Inge, who you met.

Mason Funk:
Can you hold it? I'm sorry, tell me about that photograph.

Eric Julber:
Typical wedding picture.

Mason Funk:
Tell me about your marriage life. You've had several wives.

Eric Julber:
Yes. Inge is the most recent and the longest-lasting. Over twenty-five years now.

Mason Funk:
And any particular memories of that day?

Eric Julber:
No. No. No, it just happened, and I'm very happy that it happened.

Mason Funk:
Okay. So now if you can wait just one minute, you can ...

Andrew Black:
It's just a clean shot.

Mason Funk:
Okay. And that's ...

Andrew Black:
It can be right in the context of [inaudible]. Okay.

Mason Funk:
Okay. Now let me trade you ...

Inge Kessler:
Don't you remember anything about that trip, Eric? You sound like you don't remember. Because it was so interesting.

Eric Julber:
It was, but-

Inge Kessler:
But you can't remember?

Eric Julber:
... you can only say so much about scenery. It was beautiful.

Mason Funk:
Okay, and then one more. The last one.

Inge Kessler:
Because you know exactly where they are. You can even tell what ...

Mason Funk:
Let's see here.

Andrew Black:
Thank you.

Mason Funk:
There we go.

Eric Julber:
By working for a pack train, I was able to do this without having to carry a lot of stuff on my back, which made it much easier, because they had their own horses and carried the food and tents and everything. And then every night, wherever we were, we would set up camp. Some of the passengers were enthusiastic fishermen and would go out fly-fishing at night and in the morning, get these fresh trout for breakfast. So it was a great way to do it.

Inge Kessler:
What was the name of the lady that didn't talk to you?

Eric Julber:
Pardon me?

Inge Kessler:
The lady that didn't talk to you.

Eric Julber:
I'm not hearing you.

Mason Funk:
She says there was a lady who didn't talk to you, I guess a socialite.

Eric Julber:
I don't know what you mean.

Inge Kessler:
There was an heiress of a fortune that was on that trip.

Eric Julber:
Oh. Oh, she talked to me.

Inge Kessler:
Oh, she did talk to you.

Eric Julber:
Her name was-

Inge Kessler:
But you couldn't get fresh with her.

Eric Julber:
No. She was a niece of J. P. Morgan. Think her name was Kay. Yes, I didn't get anywhere with her. But do you have her picture? Yes?

Mason Funk:
It's in the scrapbook, but I didn't take it out.

Eric Julber:
Oh.

Mason Funk:
Can you hold up one more photograph for us, which is the one of you and Inge?

Eric Julber:
No.

Mason Funk:
You don't want to show this on camera?

Eric Julber:
Not of her.

Mason Funk:
Oh, okay. All right.

Eric Julber:
Public viewing.

Mason Funk:
Not for public viewing. It's a private photo. All right.

Eric Julber:
Is there anything-

Mason Funk:
But if you'll get ... Can we stop the camera for a minute? Well, I thought I'd be able to but now I can't find it.

Inge Kessler:
Do you want your glasses? But she wasn't really that important in your life.

Mason Funk:
I saw her in there. You'll find her. I saw photographs of a very attractive young woman.

Eric Julber:
A profile. Oh, yeah. Here we are. Yeah, that was her. And that.

Mason Funk:
Can you hold the book up a little bit towards the camera? And tilt it back towards you a little bit? That's good. Is that good for you?

Andrew Black:
Yeah. Pull ... camera left [inaudible] in a little bit, just to get rid of the glare. There we go.

Mason Funk:
Okay. Oops. Can you grab right here? Like right ... Perfect.

Eric Julber:
Well-

Mason Funk:
And tell us about her again.

Eric Julber:
She was a niece of J. P. Morgan. Pennoyer was a famous financier back east, and there was a famous constitutional law case called Pennoyer v. Neff. But anyway, that's her family. She was a very good hiker, and very avid to come out to the Sierras all by herself, enjoying this trip.

Mason Funk:
So she came out all by herself on the trip?

Eric Julber:
Yeah.

Mason Funk:
She didn't hire ... She was alone?

Eric Julber:
Yeah. And I tried to get friendly with her. She was rather standoffish. And I heard that in later life she opened a bed and breakfast back in New England somewhere, but that's the last that I've heard of her. Maybe if somebody sees this they'll get in touch, let me know ...

Mason Funk:
Well, that's great. I think that's all the questions I have for you.

Eric Julber:
Okay.

Mason Funk:
Is there anything that you would like to share with us?

Eric Julber:
No, no, that's about it. Very interesting. Thank you very much.

Mason Funk:
Well, thank you. It's our pleasure. If I can just take a photograph of you ... May I take a photograph of you for the record?

Eric Julber:
Oh, sure.

Mason Funk:
And then I would love one of you with your wife as well. Let's see. [inaudible]. There we go. That's better. And one more. Inge, do you want to come for a photograph?

Inge Kessler:
Sure.

Andrew Black:
Just spin that chair around.

Inge Kessler:
You want me to sit?

Mason Funk:
Yes, that's great.

Inge Kessler:
And I'm not even jealous.

Mason Funk:
Let me just swing this out the way. There we go.

Inge Kessler:
Or am I too high?

Andrew Black:
[inaudible].

Mason Funk:
I think this is great. And one more. Great. Thank you both very much.

Inge Kessler:
You're welcome.

Eric Julber:
Thank you. Very-

Keywords: Camping; Divorce; John Muir Trail; Kay Pennoyer; Marriage; Muir Woods