United States v. Reidel
91 S. Ct. 1410, 402 U.S. 351, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 46 (1971)
Rule of Law:
The constitutional right to possess obscene material in the privacy of one's home established in Stanley v. Georgia does not create a corresponding First Amendment right to distribute, sell, or mail such material, even to willing adult recipients.
Facts:
- Norman Reidel operated a business involving the distribution of booklets titled 'The True Facts About Imported Pornography.'
- Reidel placed an advertisement in a newspaper soliciting orders for the booklet.
- The advertisement stipulated that purchasers must send money and explicitly state they were 21 years of age.
- A postal inspector, who was over the age of 21, responded to the advertisement and ordered the booklet.
- Reidel mailed a single copy of the booklet to the postal inspector.
- Reidel deposited two additional copies of the booklet in the mail, which were subsequently returned to him marked 'undelivered.'
- Reidel's business premises were searched, resulting in the seizure of the returned booklets.
Procedural Posture:
- Reidel was indicted in the District Court on three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1461.
- Reidel filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the statute could not be validly applied to distribution to willing adults.
- The United States Government appealed the dismissal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 18 U.S.C. § 1461, which prohibits the knowing use of the mails for the delivery of obscene matter, violate the First Amendment when applied to the distribution of such materials to willing recipients who state they are adults?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the statute is constitutional because the First Amendment does not protect the commercial distribution of obscenity. The Court reaffirmed Roth v. United States, which held that obscenity is not protected speech. The Court distinguished the present case from Stanley v. Georgia, reasoning that Stanley only protected the freedom of mind and privacy of receiving information within one's own home. That privacy right does not extend to a right to purchase or sell obscene materials in the public marketplace or through the mails. The government retains the power to regulate the distribution of contraband, and the mere fact that an adult is willing to receive the material does not immunize the distributor from prosecution.
Concurrence - Justice Harlan
No, the right to receive materials is not absolute regarding commercial distribution. He argued that Stanley was grounded in the protection of a person's 'inner life' and thoughts from government manipulation, not in a right to a marketplace for obscenity. Since Roth remains valid law, the government may proscribe obscenity as a category of speech, provided it does not infringe upon the private possession protected by Stanley.
Concurring_in_judgment - Justice Marshall
No, the statute may be validly applied because mail distribution poses inherent risks to children. He noted that while Reidel asked buyers to declare their age, this was an insufficient safeguard to prevent minors from accessing the materials. Consequently, the government has a valid interest in regulating this mode of distribution to protect children, regardless of the willingness of the intended adult recipients.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it strictly limited the scope of Stanley v. Georgia (1969). After Stanley, many legal scholars and lower courts believed the Supreme Court was moving toward legalizing obscenity for consenting adults. Reidel halted that momentum by clarifying that the right to privacy is spatially limited to the home and does not create a correlative right to distribute or buy obscene materials. It reinforces the 'two-level' theory of free speech, where obscenity remains outside First Amendment protection, and affirms the government's broad police powers to regulate the mails and commercial morality.
