United States v. Reidel
| United States v. Reidel | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 20, 1971 Decided May 3, 1971 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Reidel |
| Citations | 402 U.S. 351 (more) 91 S. Ct. 1410; 28 L. Ed. 2d 813; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 46 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Stanley v. Georgia, Roth v. United States |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Concurrence | Marshall |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Douglas |
United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a postal regulation that banned the sale of adult materials was constitutionally permissible.[1][2][3]
Background
[edit]At the time of this case, § 1461 of Title 18 prohibited the mailing of any "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance..."[3] § 1461 provided for fines and/or up to five years imprisonment for first offenders, and up to ten years for later offenses.[4]
Two years earlier, in Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Court had found a constitutional right to possess pornographic materials.[5]
In 1970, Norman Reidel advertised, sold, and mailed copies of his $1 booklet, The True Facts about Imported Pornography, to adult-identified customers.[6][7] Reidel was prosecuted under three counts of violating § 1461. The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the case, whereupon the U.S. appealed directly to the Supreme Court.[3]
The Court heard and decided this case along with United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs.[3]
Opinion of the Court
[edit]Associate Justice Byron White penned the Court's opinion reversing the district court and finding the postal regulation Constitutional. While individuals still retain a right to possess pornography, as the Court had found in Stanley v. Georgia, the government still had the power to regulate the distribution and sale of obscene materials, as it had found in Roth v. United States (1957).[1]
Justice Hugo Black, joined by Justice William O. Douglas, dissented in both this case and in Thirty-seven Photographs case, arguing that § 1461 was unconstitutional, that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution "denies Congress the power to act as censor".
References
[edit]- ^ a b United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971).
- ^ Green, Jonathon; Karolides, Nicholas J. (January 1, 2009). Encyclopedia of Censorship. Infobase Publishing. pp. 632–. ISBN 9781438110011. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
- ^ a b c d "Supreme Court Report". ABA Journal. 57. American Bar Association: 811. August 1971.
- ^ "18 U.S.C. § 1461 : US Code - Section 1461: Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter". FindLaw. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
- ^ Dimitrakopoulos, Ioannis G. (March 1, 2007). Individual Rights and Liberties Under the U.S. Constitution: The Case Law of the U.S. Supreme Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 586–. ISBN 9789004157910. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
- ^ Hunnings, N. March (August 1971). "Obscene Publications". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 20 (4). Cambridge University Press: 772. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/20.4.772. JSTOR 757769.
- ^ "High Court Upholds Law On Mailing Obscene Matter". Star-News. May 3, 1971. p. 9. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
External links
[edit]
Works related to United States v. Reidel at Wikisource- Text of United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |