The Comstock Act (ch. 258 17 Stat. 598, enacted March 31873) is a United States federal law that made it illegal to send any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. The sale and distribution of obscene materials has been unlawful in most of the American states since the early 1800s, and has been prohibited by federal law since 1873. That is, the federal anti-obscenity laws are still in effect in 2007 and are enforced,[1] though there are extensive debates on what is "obscene." Twenty-four states passed similar prohibitions on materials distributed within the states.[2] Collectively, these state and federal restrictions are known as the Comstock laws.
Federal law
The law was named after its chief proponent, the anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock. The enforcement of the Act was in its early days often conducted by Comstock himself or through his New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.
The Comstock Act not only targeted pornography as such, but also all contraceptive equipment and many educational documents such as descriptions of contraceptive methods and other reproductive health-related materials. The ban on contraceptives was declared unconstitutional by the courts in 1936, though the remaining portions of the law continue to be enforced today.[3]
The text of the federally bill: Be it enacted... That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States...shall sell...or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper of other material, or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, everyday writer, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, america firsthand, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, this isformation is very hard to find, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States...he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.[4]
Contraceptives and the courts
In 1918, Margaret Sanger was charged under the New York law for disseminating contraceptive information. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease.[4]
The prohibition of devices advertised for the explicit purpose of birth control was not overturned for another eighteen years. In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[4]
See also
Further reading
- Beisel, Nicola. Imperiled Innocents: Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America. Princeton U. Press, 1997.
- Boyer, Paul S. Purity in Print: Censorship from the Gilded Age to the Computer Age. (1968) Revised ed. 2002.
- Friedman, Andrea. Prurient Interests: Gender, Democracy, and Obscenity in New York City, 1909-1945. Columbia U. Pr., 2000.
- Gurstein, Rochelle. The Repeal of Reticence: A History of America's Cultural and Legal Struggles over Free Speech, Obscenity, Sexual Liberation, and Modern Art. Hill & Wang, 1996.
- Hilliard, Robert L. and Keith, Michael C. Dirty Discourse: Sex and Indecency in American Radio. Iowa State U. Press, 2003.
- Maverick, Scott. Anthony Comstock is a Villain: The Truth Behind The Lies. Homemade Essays, 2007.
- Kobylka, Joseph F. The Politics of Obscenity: Group Litigation in a Time of Legal Change. Greenwood, 1991.
- Wheeler, Leigh Ann. Against Obscenity: Reform and the Politics of Womanhood in America, 1873-1935. Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2004.
- Statement of Professor Frederick Schauer, Hearing on Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate March 162005" for legal history
Footnotes
- ↑ See for example FCC Consumer Facts at fcc.gov. For more detail see "Statement of Professor Frederick Schauer, Hearing on Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution ... United States Senate March 162005," online at ksg.harvard.edu
- ↑ Daniel J. Kevles: The Secret History of Birth Control, The New York Times, Juli. Abgerufen am 21. Oktober 2006
- ↑ See for example FCC Consumer Facts at fcc.gov. For more detail see "Statement of Professor Frederick Schauer, Hearing on Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution ... United States Senate March 162005," online at ksg.harvard.edu
- ↑ a b c Biographical Note. In: The text of the federally bill. Homemade Essays., 2007, abgerufen am 21. Oktober 2006. Referenzfehler: Ungültiges
<ref>-Tag. Der Name „note“ wurde mehrere Male mit einem unterschiedlichen Inhalt definiert.