18 U.S.C. § 1461

Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance; and—

Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—

Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.

Whoever knowingly uses the mails for the mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery of anything declared by this section or section 3001(e) of title 39 to be nonmailable, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, or knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

The term “indecent”, as used in this section includes matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 400 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974). · cites it 56× “Questions as to the constitutionality of 18 U. S. C. § 1461 , [8] the primary statute under which petitioners *99 were convicted, were not strangers to this Court prior to the Miller decision.”

Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977). · cites it 10× “The case also raises the question whether § 1461 is unconstitutionally vague as applied in these circumstances, and the question whether the trial court, during the voir dire of prospective jurors, correctly refused to ask proffered questions relating to community standards.”

Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The defendant argued that the charge was improper because in order for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (mailing obscene materials) to be constitutionally sound, the government had to prove that the defendant had “awareness of the obscene character of the material.”

United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “§ 371 , and two counts of mailing obscene materials and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1462. The Ragsdales appeal from their convictions and sentences.”

United States v. Lee R. Johnson, 855 F.2d 299 (6th Cir. 1988). · cites it 14× “§ 2252 , and fifteen counts of receiving obscene materials through the mails in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 . Johnson, an associate professor of history at Memphis State University, is a self-confessed pedophile.”

Manual Enter., Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962). · cites it 10× “That ruling was based on alternative determinations that the magazines (1) were themselves "obscene," and (2) gave information as to where obscene matter could be obtained, thus rendering them nonmailable under two separate provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 1461 , known as the…”

United States v. Walter J. Kussmaul, 987 F.2d 345 (6th Cir. 1993). · cites it 11× “Kussmaul appealed his conviction on one count of causing non-mailable matter, in this case obscene pornographic videotapes, to be delivered by mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 . I. In October 1989, using a mailing list obtained from an earlier prosecution of an adult film…”

All. Hippocratic Med. v. FDA, 78 F.4th 210 (5th Cir. 2023). · cites it 6× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1461 . It also makes it a crime to “use[] .”

Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983). · cites it 4× “In addition to the civil consequences of a violation of § 3001(e)(2), 18 U. S. C. § 1461 makes it a crime knowingly to use the mails for anything declared by § 3001(e) to be nonmailable.”

Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). · cites it 4× “87 (1974), for example, we reviewed the petitioners' convictions for mailing and conspiring to mail an obscene advertising brochure under 18 U. S. C. § 1461 . That statute makes it a crime to mail an "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing,…”

Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966). · cites it 8× “A judge sitting without a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [1] 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.”

Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978). · cites it 4× “[14] Pacifica argues, however, that this Court has construed the term "indecent" in related statutes to mean "obscene," as that term was defined in Miller v.”

Show all 400 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.