United States v. Wightman
| Decision Date | 30 December 1886 |
| Citation | 29 F. 636 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WIGHTMAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Wm. A Stone, U.S. Atty., for the United States.
Thomas W. Lloyd, for defendant.
In the view I take of this case, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion upon the unsettled question (U.S. v Chase, 27 F. 807) whether the words, 'every obscene lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, paper, writing print, or other publication of an indecent character,' as used in the first clause of section 3893 of the Revised Statutes defining non-mailable matter, etc., include an obscene letter inclosed in a sealed envelope, bearing nothing but the address of the person to whom the letter is written; for I have reached the conclusion that neither of the letters which are the subject of this indictment, either in language or import, is 'obscene, lewd, or lascivious,' within the purview of the statute. According to the well-considered case of U.S. v. Bennett, 16 Blatchf. 362, the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such influences. This, it seems to me, correctly indicates the purport of the word 'obscene,' as employed in this statute. Like the terms 'lewd' and 'lascivious,' with which it is associated, it implies something tending to suggest libidinous thoughts, or excite impure desires. Now, I do not think that either of the letters under consideration has any such corrupting or debauching tendency. Both letters are exceedingly coarse and vulgar, and one of them is grossly libelous,-- imputing to the person addressed an atrocious crime,-- but none of these characteristics, nor all combined, are sufficient to bring the letters within the inhibition and penalty of the statute. U.S. v. Smith, 11 F. 663.
I may add that the word 'indecent,' in the first clause of section 3893, seems to be confined to the 'other publication' declared to be non-mailable. But, at any rate, the term as there employed has been held to mean that which 'tends to obscenity,' or 'matter having that form of indecency which is calculated to promote the general corruption of morals. ' U.S. v. Bennett, supra.
The opinion of the court, then, being that the letters in question do not contain anything of an 'obscene, lewd, or lascivious' character, within the meaning of the statute judgment must be arrested; and it is so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parmelee v. United States
...States v. Harmon, D.Kan., 45 F. 414, reversed on other grounds, 50 F. 921; United States v. Smith, E.D.Wis., 45 F. 476; United States v. Wightman, W.D.Pa., 29 F. 636; United States v. Bebout, N.D. Ohio, 28 F. 522. See generally, Alpert, Judicial Censorship of Obscene Literature, 52 Harv.L.R......
-
United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses
...sort may fall, has become the test thoroughly entrenched in the federal courts. United States v. Bebout (D. C.) 28 F. 522; United States v. Wightman (D. C.) 29 F. 636; United States v. Clarke (D. C.) 38 F. 732; United States v. Smith (D. C.) 45 F. 476; Burton v. United States, 142 F. 57 (C.......
-
United States v. Males
... ... It is said that ... the history of the legislation clearly shows that the ... congress determined to exclude from the mails writings of an ... impure and immoral character, and not such as were merely ... coarse, rough, or vulgar. In U.S. v. Wightman, 29 F ... 636, it is held that a letter, although exceedingly coarse ... and vulgar, ... [51 F. 43.] ... and grossly libelous, but which has no tendency to excite ... libidinous thoughts or impure desires, or to deprave and ... corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such ... ...
-
United States v. Levine, 252.
...States v. Bebout (D.C.) 28 F. 522; United States v. Clarke (D.C.) 38 F. 732; United States v. Smith (D.C.) 45 F. 476. United States v. Wightman (D.C.) 29 F. 636, approved this obiter. At times even in these decisions, e. g., United States v. Clarke and United States v. Smith, there were int......