MANual Enterprises v. Day
| MANual Enterprises v. Day | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 26–27, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 |
|
| Full case name | MANual Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. J. Edward Day, United States Postmaster General |
| Citations | 370 U.S. 478 (more)
82 S. Ct. 1432; 8 L. Ed. 2d 639; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2163
|
| Prior history | On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Photographs of nude, or near-nude, male models are not "obscene" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1461 | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Harlan, joined by Stewart |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Warren and Douglas; Black |
| Dissent | Clark |
| Frankfurter took no part in the decision, White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| First Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 1461 | |
MANual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962) is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that magazines consisting largely of photographs of nude or near-nude male models are not obscene within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. It was the first case in which the Court engaged in plenary review of a Post Office Department order holding obscene matter "nonmailable."
The case is notable for its ruling that photographs of nude men are not obscene, an implication which opened the U.S. mail to nude male pornographic magazines, especially those catering to gay men.
In the 1950s, Herman Lynn Womack of Washington, D.C., published three beefcake magazines, MANual, Trim and Grecian Guild Pictorial. Although the magazines were aimed at gay men, the content did not explicitly mention homosexuality. Beginning in 1959, Womack began to publish softcore photographs showing fully nude men.
On March 25, 1960, six parcels containing 405 copies of the three magazines were seized by the postmaster in Alexandria, Virginia. After an evidentiary hearing, the Judicial Officer of the Post Office Department found that the magazines (1) were composed primarily, if not exclusively, for homosexuals and had no literary, scientific or other merit; (2) would appeal to the "prurient interest" of "sexual deviates" but would not have any interest for sexually normal individuals; (3) are read almost entirely by homosexuals, and possibly a few adolescent males; and (4) would not ordinarily be bought by normal male adults. The Judicial Officer concluded the magazines were obscene and therefore "nonmailable."
Womack sued in federal district court for injunctive relief. However, the government moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and sustained the administrative ruling (110 U.S. App. D.C. 78).
...
Wikipedia