Whoever knowingly produces with the intent to transport, distribute, or transmit in interstate or foreign commerce, or whoever knowingly transports or travels in, or uses a facility or means of, interstate or foreign commerce or an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 11 See References in Text note below. of the Communications Act of 1934) in or affecting such commerce, for the purpose of sale or distribution of any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The transportation as aforesaid of two or more copies of any publication or two or more of any article of the character described above, or a combined total of five such publications and articles, shall create a presumption that such publications or articles are intended for sale or distribution, but such presumption shall be rebuttable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
136
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case:
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
· cites it 4× “[1] I Petitioners were charged with several counts of transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1465 , and with conspiracy to transport such materials, 18 U.”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
· cites it 2× “188, 190 ( 18 U. S. C. § 1465 ). Nothing requires the conclusion that the word "indecent" has any meaning in § 1464 other than that ascribed to the same word in § 1461.”
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
· cites it 4× “1 I Petitioners were charged with several counts of transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1465 , and with conspiracy to transport such materials, 18 U.”
Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993).
· cites it 2× “Following a 4-month jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, petitioner was convicted of 17 substantive obscenity offenses: 12 counts of transporting obscene material in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution, in…”
United States v. Robert Alan Thomas (94-6648) & Carleen Thomas (94-6649), 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 4× “§§ 1462 , 1465 (Count 1), six counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1465 for knowingly using and causing to be used a facility and means of interstate commerce — a combined computer/telephone system — for the purpose of transporting obscene, computer-generated materials (the GIF files) in…”
United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406 (C.A.A.F. 1996).
· cites it 2× “One specification alleges violation of 18 USC § 1465 by knowingly transporting in interstate commerce, for purposes of distribution, obscene materials, and the other alleges violation of 18 USC § 2252 by knowingly transporting or receiving child pornography in interstate…”
Buttercase v. Davis, 982 N.W.2d 240 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Nearly a year later, Buttercase, now represented by a fed- eral public defender, pled guilty to producing and transporting obscene materials for distribution, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1465 (2018), and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprison- ment, to run concurrently with the…”
United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2002).
“1996) (addressing 18 U.S.C. § 1465 ); United States v. Smith, 47 M.”
McElroy v. United States, 455 U.S. 642 (1982).
· cites it 2× “§ 1301 (lotteries); 18 U. S. C. § 1465 (obscenity); 18 U. S. C.”
United States v. Walter \Frenchy\" Bagnell", 679 F.2d 826 (11th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 3× “§ 1462 , 1 and two counts charging interstate transportation of obscene material for purposes of sale and distribution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1465 . 2 On appeal, Bagnell asserts numerous errors, none of which is meritorious.”
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.