|
|
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
Ginzburg v. United States No. 4 Argued December 7, 1965 Decided March 21, 1966 383 U.S. 463
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner Ginzburg and three corporations which he controlled were convicted of violating the federal obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, by mailing three publications: an expensive hardcover magazine dealing with sex, a sexual newsletter, and a short book purporting to be a sexual autobiography. The prosecution charged that these publications were obscene in the context of their production, sale, and attendant publicity. Besides testimony as to the merit of the material, abundant evidence was introduced that each of the publications was originated or sold as stock in trade of the business of pandering, i.e., the purveying of publications openly advertised to appeal to the customers’ erotic interest. Mailing privileges were sought from places with salaciously suggestive names; circulars for the magazine and newsletter stressed unrestricted expression of sex, and advertising of the book which purported to be of medical and psychiatric interest, but whose distribution was not confined to a professional audience, dwelt on the book’s sexual imagery. In finding petitioners guilty, the trial judge applied the obscenity standards first enunciated in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Evidence that the petitioners deliberately represented the accused publications as erotically arousing and commercially exploited them as erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal amply supported the trial court’s determination that the material was obscene under the standards of the Roth case, supra. The mere fact of profit from the sale of the publication is not considered; but, in a close case, a showing of exploitation of interests in titillation by pornography with respect to material lending itself to such exploitation through pervasive treatment or description of sexual matters supports a determination that the material is obscene. Pp. 470-476.
338 F.2d 12, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966) in 383 U.S. 463 383 U.S. 464. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C9S7YDMX2GHDW1Q.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966), in 383 U.S. 463, page 383 U.S. 464. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C9S7YDMX2GHDW1Q.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966). cited in 1966, 383 U.S. 463, pp.383 U.S. 464. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C9S7YDMX2GHDW1Q.
|