DYSART
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dysart was convicted under federal law for mailing obscene materials—specifically, circulars advertising a maternity home for unmarried women—to unmarried women in violation of the postal obscenity statute. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the circulars, while in poor taste and sent inappropriately to refined women, did not constitute obscene material under the statute, which requires content calculated to corrupt morals through sexual impurity, and therefore the indictment failed to charge an offense within the meaning of the law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Circuit Court of Appeals — 4 Fed. (2d) 765— affirmed a judgment of conviction under an indictment which charged that petitioner deposited in the Post Office at El Paso, Texas, for conveyance through the mails, an obscene, lewd and lascivious printed card and letter, in violation of Section 211, Criminal Code. There were eleven counts, identical in all respects except that each named a different addressee, génerally an unmarried woman.
Copies of the card and letter were set out in haec verba. They were intended to advertise The Queen Ann Private Home for unmarried women during pregnancy and con-' finement, who prefer to be away from home during such time in order “ to preserve individual character or family reputation.” The letter, ostensibly intended for a doctor, states: The home is a private place for. the care and protection of a few unfortunate women “ until the time when they may return to their homes and friends, free from the burden of their mistake, to become useful members of society.” “ We find homes for infant's by adoption when desired, or provide board for them at reasonable rates.” Only persons recommended by reputable physicians are accepted. And it invites visits by physicians. Section 211, Criminal Code, was taken from Section 3893, Revised Statutes. The pertinent portions follow: “ Every obscene, lewd or lascivious, and every filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print or other publication of an indecent character ... is hereby declared to be nonmailable matter . . . Whoever .shall knowingly deposit or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery anything declared by this section to be non-mailable . . . shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The Solicitor General; with his usual commendable candor, after calling attention to the facts disclosed by the record and relevant opinions, adds: “ It is not so easy to believe that circulars of this kind could to any substantial degree undermine morals or induce delinquency. To some such a result would seem altogether fanciful.”
In Swearingen v. United States, 161 U. S. 446, 450, where the indictment charged that the plaintiff -in error mailed a newspaper containing. an “ obscene, lewd and lascivious article,” contrary to, Section 3893,. Revised Statutes, this'court said: “ The offense aimed at, in that portion of the statute we aré now considering, was the use of the mails to circulate or deliver-matter'to corrupt the morals of the people. The words ‘ obscene,’ ‘ lewd,’ and ‘ lascivious,’ as used in the-statute, signify that form of immorality which has relation to sexual impurity,. and have the same meaning as is given them at common law in prosecutions for obscene libel. As the statute is highly penal, it should not be held to embrace language unless it is fairly within its letter and spirit. Referring to this newspaper article, as found in the record, it is undeniable that its language is exceedingly coarse and vulgar, and, as applied to an individual person, plainly libelous. But we cannot perceive in it anything of a.léwd, lascivious and obscene tendency, calculated to corrupt and debauch the mind and morals of those into whose hands it might fall.”
Notwithstanding the inexcusable action of petitioner in sending these advertisements to refined women, it is not possible for us to conclude that the indictment charges an offense within the meaning of the statute as construed by the opinion just cited. The motion to quash should have been sustained by the trial court.
The judgment below must be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court, Western District of Texas, for further proceedings in harmony with this opinion.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1968)…ates, 161 U. S. 29; Swearingen v. United States, 161 U. S. 446; Andrews v. United States, 162 U. S. 420; Price v. United States, 165 U. S. 311; Dunlop v. United States, 165 U. S. 486; Bartell v. United States, 227 U. S. 427; Dysart v. United States, 272 U. S. 655; United States v. Limehouse, 285 U. S. 424. Thus, Roth v. United States, supra, which involved both a challenge to 18 U. S. C. §1461 (punishing the [*654] mailing of “obscene” material) and, in a consolidated case (Alberts v. California), an attack…
-
United States v. Dennett, 39 F.2d 564 (2d Cir. 1930)…are clearly indecent. We have been referred to no decision where a truthful exposition of the sex side of life, evidently calculated for instruction and for the explanation of relevant facts, has been held to be obscene. In Dysart v. United States, 272 U. S. 655, 47 S. Ct. 234, 71 L. Ed. 461, it was decided that the advertisement of a lying-in retreat to enable unmarried women to conceal their missteps, even though written in a coarse and vulgar style, did not fall, within prohibition of the statute, and wa…1 / 2
-
Parmelee v. United States, 113 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1940)…ited States, 9 Cir., 48 F. 2d 128, 131-133, certiorari denied, 283 U.S. 863, 51 S.Ct. 656, 75 L.Ed. 1468); having relation to sexual impurity (Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 451, 16 S.Ct 562, 40 L.Ed. [*731] 765; Dysart v. United States, 272 U.S. 655, 657, 47 S.Ct. 234, 71 L.Ed. 461; Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 16 S.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606. See United States v. Limehouse, 285 U.S. 424, 52 S.Ct. 412, 76 L.Ed. 843); tending to stir the sex impulses or to lead to sexually impure and lus…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446 (U.S. 1896)
- Dysart v. United States, 4 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1925)
- Dysart v. The United States, 268 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1925)