Ginzburg v. United States Mishkin v. State of New York, Nos. 42 and 49

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRENNAN
Citation86 S.Ct. 943,383 U.S. 463,16 L.Ed.2d 31
Docket NumberNos. 42 and 49
Decision Date21 March 1966
PartiesRalph GINZBURG et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. Edward MISHKIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK

383 U.S. 463
86 S.Ct. 943
16 L.Ed.2d 31
Ralph GINZBURG et al., Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES. Edward MISHKIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK.

Nos. 42 and 49.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 21, 1966
Dissenting Opinion.

Page 464

Paul Bender, Washington, D.C., for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

A judge sitting without a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania1 convicted petitioner Ginzburg and three corporations controlled by him upon all 28 counts of an indictment charging violation of the federal obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (1964 ed.).2 224 F.Supp. 129. Each count alleged that a resident of the Eastern District received mailed matter, either one of three publications challenged as obscene, or advertising telling how and where the publications might

Page 465

be obtained. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 338 F.2d 12. We granted certiorari, 380 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 152. We affirm. Since petitioners do not argue that the trial judge misconceived or failed to apply the standards we first enunciated in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 14983 the only serious question is whether those standards were correctly applied.4

In the cases in which this Court has decided obscenity questions since Roth, it has regarded the materials as sufficient in themselves for the determination of the question. In the present case, however, the prosecution charged the offense in the context of the circumstances of production, sale, and publicity and assumed that, standing alone, the publications themselves might not be obscene. We agree that the question of obscenity may include consideration of the setting in which the publications were presented as an aid to determining the ques-

Page 466

tion of obscenity, and assume without deciding that the prosecution could not have succeeded otherwise. As in Mishkin v. State of New York, 383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958, and as did the courts below, 224 F.Supp., at 134, 338 F.2d, at 14—15, we view the publications against a background of commercial exploitation of erotica solely for the sake of their prurient appeal.5 The record in that regard amply supports the decision of the trial judge that the mailing of all three publications offended the statute.6

The three publications were EROS, a hard-cover magazine of expensive format; Liaison, a bi-weekly newsletter; and The Housewife's Handbook on Selective Promiscuity (hereinafter the Handbook), a short book. The issue of EROS specified in the indictment, Vol. 1, No. 4, contains 15 articles and photo-essays on the subject of love, sex, and sexual relations. The specified issue of Liaison, Vol. 1, No. 1, contains a prefatory 'Letter from the Editors' announcing its dedication to 'keeping sex an art and preventing it from becoming a science.' The remainder of the issue consists of digests of two

Page 467

articles concerning sex and sexual relations which had earlier appeared in professional journals and a report of an interview with a psychotherapist who favors the broadest license in sexual relationships. As the trial judge noted, '(w)hile the treatment is largely superficial, it is presented entirely without restraint of any kind. According to defendants' own expert, it is entirely without literary merit.' 224 F.Supp., at 134. The Handbook purports to be a sexual autobiography detailing with complete candor the author's sexual experiences from age 3 to age 36. The text includes, and prefatory and concluding sections of the book elaborate, her views on such subjects as sex education of children, laws regulating private consensual adult sexual practices, and the equality of women in sexual relationships. It was claimed at trial that women would find the book valuable, for example as a marriage manual or as an aid to the sex education of their children.

Besides testimony as to the merit of the material, there was abundant evidence to show that each of the accused publications was originated or sold as stock in trade of the sordid business of pandering—'the business of purveying textual or graphic matter openly advertised to appeal to the erotic interest of their customers.'7 EROS early sought mailing privileges from the postmasters of Intercourse and Blue Ball, Pennsylvania. The trial court found the obvious, that these hamlets were chosen only for the value their names would have in furthering petitioners' efforts to sell their publications on the basis of salacious appeal;8 the facilities of the

Page 468

post offices were inadequate to handle the anticipated volume of mail, and the privileges were denied. Mailing privileges were then obtained from the postmaster of Middlesex, New Jersey. EROS and Liaison thereafter mailed several million circulars soliciting subscriptions from that post office; over 5,500 copies of the Handbook were mailed.

The 'leer of the sensualist' also permeates the advertising for the three publications. The circulars sent for EROS and Liaison stressed the sexual candor of the respective publications, and openly boasted that the publishers would take full advantage of what they regarded an unrestricted license allowed by law in the expression of sex and sexual matters.9 The advertising for the

Page 469

Handbook, apparently mailed from New York, consisted almost entirely of a reproduction of the introduction of the book, written by one Dr. Albert Ellis. Although he alludes to the book's informational value and its putative therapeutic usefulness, his remarks are preoccupied with the book's sexual imagery. The solicitation was indiscriminate, not limited to those, such as physicians or phychiatrists, who might independently discern the book's

Page 470

therapeutic worth.10 Inserted in each advertisement was a slip labeled 'GUARANTEE' and reading, 'Documentary Books, Inc. unconditionally guarantees full refund on the price of THE HOUSEWIFE'S HANDBOOK ON SELECTIVE PROMISCUITY if the book fails to reach you because of U.S. Post Office censorship interference.' Similar slips appeared in the advertising for EROS and Liaison; they highlighted the gloss petitioners put on the publications, eliminating any doubt what the purchaser was being asked to buy.11

This evidence, in our view, was relevant in determining the ultimate question of obscenity and, in the context of this record, serves to resolve all ambiguity and doubt. The deliberate representation of petitioners' publications as erotically arousing, for example, stimulated the reader to accept them as prurient; he looks for titillation, not for saving intellectual content. Similarly, such representation would tend to force public confrontation with the potentially offensive aspects of the work; the brazenness of such an appeal heightens the offensiveness of the publications to those who are offended by such material. And the circumstances of presentation and dissemination of material are equally relevant to determining whether social importance claimed for material in the courtroom was, in the circumstances, pretense or reality—whether it was the basis upon which it was traded in the market-place or a spurious claim for litigation purposes. Where the purveyor's sole emphasis is on the sexually provocative aspects of his publications, that fact may be decisive in the determination of obscenity. Certainly in a prosecution which, as here, does not necessarily imply sup-

Page 471

pression of the materials involved, the fact that they originate or are used as a subject of pandering is relevant to the application of the Roth test.

A proposition argued as to EROS, for example, is that the trial judge improperly found the magazine to be obscene as a whole, since he concluded that only four of the 15 articles predominantly appealed to prurient interest and substantially exceeded community standards of candor, while the other articles were admittedly non-offensive. But the trial judge found that '(t)he deliberate and studied arrangement of EROS is editorialized for the purpose of appealing predominantly to prurient interest and to insulate through the inclusion of non-offensive material.' 224 F.Supp., at 131. However erroneous such a conclusion might be if unsupported by the evidence of pandering, the record here supports it. EROS was created, represented and sold solely as a claimed instrument of the sexual stimulation it would bring. Like the other publications, its pervasive treatment of sex and sexual matters rendered it available to exploitation by those who would make a business of pandering to 'the widespread weakness for titillation by pornography.'12 Petitioners' own expert agreed, correctly we think, that '(i)f the object (of a work) is material gain for the creator through an appeal to the sexual curiosity and appetite,' the work is pornographic. In other words, by animating sensual detail to give the publication a salacious cast, petitioners reinforced what is conceded by the Government to be an otherwise debatable conclusion.

A similar analysis applies to the judgment regarding the Handbook. The bulk of the proofs directed to social importance concerned this publication. Before selling publication rights to petitioners, its author had

Page 472

printed it privately; she sent circulars to persons whose names appeared on membership lists of medical and psychiatric associations, asserting its value as an adjunct to therapy. Over 12,000 sales resulted from this solicitation, and a number of witnesses testified that they found the work useful in their professional practice. The Government does not seriously contest the claim that the book has worth in such a controlled, or even neutral, environment. Petitioners, however, did not sell the book to such a limited audience, or focus their claims for it on its supposed therapeutic or educational value;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
403 practice notes
  • State v. J-R Distributors, Inc., J-R
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 27, 1973
    ...'redeeming social value'. Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966); See also Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966). Although the Memoirs test of 'utterly without redeeming social value' has been rejected, this is not to ......
  • 44 600 Bigelow v. Virginia 8212 1309, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1975
    ...in itself, is no justification for narrowing the protection of expression secured by the First Amendment.' Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 474, 86 S.Ct. 942, 949, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966). Page 819 Although other categories of speech—such as fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,......
  • Marks v. United States v. 1976, No. 75-708
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1977
    ...based on his view that only 'hardcore pornography' may be suppressed. Id., at 421, 86 S.Ct., at 978. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 499, 86 S.Ct. 942, 956, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966) Page 194 (Stewart, J., dissenting). The view of the Memoirs plurality therefore constituted the hold......
  • Miller v. California 8212 73 18 8212 19, 1972, No. 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1973
    ...of the Court, or the plurality opinions, in Roth v. United States, supra; Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra; Ginzburg v. United Page 27 States, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 952, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958, 16 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); and Memoiors v. Massachusetts, sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
399 cases
  • State v. J-R Distributors, Inc., J-R
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 27, 1973
    ...'redeeming social value'. Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966); See also Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966). Although the Memoirs test of 'utterly without redeeming social value' has been rejected, this is not to ......
  • 44 600 Bigelow v. Virginia 8212 1309, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1975
    ...in itself, is no justification for narrowing the protection of expression secured by the First Amendment.' Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 474, 86 S.Ct. 942, 949, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966). Page 819 Although other categories of speech—such as fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,......
  • Marks v. United States v. 1976, No. 75-708
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1977
    ...based on his view that only 'hardcore pornography' may be suppressed. Id., at 421, 86 S.Ct., at 978. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 499, 86 S.Ct. 942, 956, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966) Page 194 (Stewart, J., dissenting). The view of the Memoirs plurality therefore constituted the hold......
  • Miller v. California 8212 73 18 8212 19, 1972, No. 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1973
    ...of the Court, or the plurality opinions, in Roth v. United States, supra; Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra; Ginzburg v. United Page 27 States, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 952, 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958, 16 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); and Memoiors v. Massachusetts, sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Pornography and Politics: the Court, the Constitution, and the Commission
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 24-4, December 1971
    • December 1, 1971
    ...372 U.S. 335 (1963). His prophetic vision with respect tojury trial came to pass in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).25 383 U.S. 463 (1966). See also A Book Named "John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 641new cens......
  • Anti-Obscenity: A Comparison of the Legal and the Feminist Perspectives
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 34-1, March 1981
    • March 1, 1981
    ...happens, the latterbecome hopelessly bogged down in definitional quagmires. See especially Black’s dissent inGinzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 476 (1966).4 See, for example, Harry M. Clor, Obscenity and Public Morality (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1969), Richard H. Kuh, Fool......
  • The Supreme Court of the United States, 1965-1966
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 19-4, December 1966
    • December 1, 1966
    ...not exceed constitutional limits.&dquo; (Pp. 455, 459.) A different aspect of this problem was studied in Ginzburg v. United States (383 U.S. 463; 86 S.Ct. 942). Here a federal court had convicted Ralph of violating the federal obscenity statute. Involved was the question of whether the......
  • Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court
    • United States
    • American Politics Research Nbr. 35-5, September 2007
    • September 1, 2007
    ...The Supreme Court in American politics: New institutionalinterpretations. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966).Greenhouse, L. (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Courtjourney. New York:Times Books.Hammond, T., Bonneau, C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT