영성, 몸-마음, 젠더, 생태, 평화 Scapbook

2023/12/08

Conversing with the book | Facebook

The Librarianologist | Conversing with the book | Facebook

İbrahim B. Karataş
otpdsneSorb6getelch 0mi:12i22af7ia2t5ermihai2u6u3fc344 5D0 7 ·

Conversing with the book
Photo Credit: vmgpdlv (IG)

All reactions:2.6KYou and 2.6K others

175 comments

494 shares

Write a public comment…

Jenny Jones

I have books my mom used in English lit in college. I used them pursuing my degree in English lit 30 years later. All her notes in her handwriting in the margins I was inspired by and I cherish today.

İbrahim B. Karataş

Author

Jenny Jones this is a very precious legacy

Jenny Jones

This is what's missing from digital books.

Jessica J. Jess

Jenny Jones you can still leave notes on digital books, I like to check back to see if what annoyed me about a book is still what is annoying me this time

Id never write in a physical book, though.

8

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View 1 reply

Cynthia Lofay Rosiek

Jenny Jones With Amazon’s new kindle one has the ability to write notes right on the screen and, of course, highlight.

4

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Jenny Jones

Cynthia Lofay Rosiek Again, digital cannot match or replace my mom's own handwriting.

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Cynthia Lofay Rosiek

Jenny Jones Absolutely. I just thought you meant one could not notate on electronic books.

3

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Paul Byrne

Jenny Jones and audio books too!

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View 1 reply

Gilad Ben Baruch

Jenny Jones ahhh, the index I add at the end of physical books to traverse my notes easier

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Mateo Hicks

This is why I started buying two copies of the same book

41

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Roxana Blu

Mateo Hicks Great idea!

3

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Vitamina Dee

It almost makes the book feel like a diary, sharing your thoughts and way of thinking. Seems pretty intimate

21

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Kathurima M'Inoti

A teacher once told me this would constitute an abusive relationship. I’ve desisted since.

20

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View all 19 replies

Vukadin Nišavić

I recommend using a pencil

29

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View all 2 replies

Νίκος Παπαδάκης

Oh no...this isn't respectful reading you just destroyed a book.

24

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View all 16 replies

Jay Frankie McGee

Wait, yall write in yalls books

. I couldn’t. I’m too scared to mess them up

5 h

Like

Reply
Share

Gilad Ben Baruch

How to Read a Book
(1940) by Mortimer J. Adler

12

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View all 2 replies

Kenneth G. Walters

I understand people doing this, but eek!

12

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Zeb Sansom

Kenneth G. Walters I hate seeing a book on my shelf I haven’t marked and underlined and highlighted. It implies it’s an important text I can’t quote verbatim from. And that’s a source of deep agony

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Fiona Clougher

Kenneth G. Walters see I DONT understand this at all. Unless you're in a book club or school or similar and are going to have lengthy discussions about it that you need notes for... I dont understand why people don't just read and absorb and enjoy. The author intended people to READ the book. Why interrupt your flow and enjoyment to scribble on it or add post it notes???? I don't see how it is savouring the book. To me reading is about absorbing words into your mind and imagination. You can even analyse it that way. But to get out a pen and start colouring the book in is a bizarre interruption to me.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Natalya Krasnova

Tolstoi! Which translation is it? That is why I love proper paper books - to be able to fully live in it , just like you do in your photo!

13

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Creighton Wodarski

I need to do this with all of my history books!

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Written Words School of English ·
Follow

This book has definitely been read and appreciated!

21

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Tanner Lynn

Waaaaaay too much writing on the page.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Steven M. Potter

This always just felt like ruining a book to me.

6

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Kandy Crosby-Hastings

Steven M. Potter, it's personalizing and studying it for me.

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Allan West

This is how you savor every book-morsel, and slaked, emerge from the experience wiping your mouth with the back of your hand.
What better tribute could a author want? This is now a valuable dialogue authored by two people.

7

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Luluf Lu

I can never ever write on a book. Countless pieces of paper with notes written on them are tucked in pages.

5

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

View 1 reply

Miryana Heath

I have no problem with this type of conversation. It gives me visual memory so when I need to remind myself of a passage or a concept, I can find it easier. It somehow bonds me with books.
But to each their own. I knew a fellow who read his books barel…
See more

5

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Suzanne De Young

As I librarian for many years, I frowned on writing in books. That makes sense since libraries are communities of sharing. Since I have retired, however, I love writing in the books I am reading. It seems like I am musing or commenting on the text o…
See more

4

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Peggy Felix

And here I am… I can’t bring myself to deface a page. I’d write on a notebook instead. I feel uneasy even when I have to fold a dog ear when I misplace my bookmark.

4

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Ναντίνα Κούλη

This could be one of my books , while lately I’ve added the receipts of my morning coffee adding notes …

3

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Babis Charalampidis

I hope that’s some sort of analysis. Otherwise, going through a book like this is like listening to a music track and pausing it every 10 seconds.

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Kandy Crosby-Hastings

Babis Charalampidis, that may be true for you, but it is not for everyone.

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Write a public reply…

John MacQuarrie

I am reading that now.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Victoria Wilkinson

John MacQuarrie me too!

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Dave Cannon

It seems here you’re inviting your future self to dive even deeper into the text, or even if you don’t intend to make a second reading, the exercise alone allows you to digest it more thoroughly.
Sometimes I’ll also mark up a book for the purpose of making the information more accessible, so I don’t have to read it again. I’ll flag the few big ideas of each chapter with a star or a quick underline and write a 1-2 sentence summary on each chapter title page

2

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

James D. Keeline

This kind of writing in a book is called "marginalia." Sometimes it can relegate a book for the discard bin such as a college textbook where a struggling student highlighted every third paragraph.
But other times, when the notes are made by someone important who is interacting with the text, this can make the copy more significant.
When Owen Gingerich made a census of the first edition of Copernicus' famous work, he noted information about past owners, the bindings, and any marginalia. The idea was that there were few in the world who could understand the content at the time and knowing more about the people who purchased, owned, and interacted with the book was significant. He described this project in a book called THE BOOK NOBODY READ.
I have a very ordinary copy of TWENTY THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. But it is special because the artist-translator Ron Miller used this copy ro make his own corrected translation of the story for his illustrated edition published by Unicorn Press. It has extensive marginal notes and corrections.
Another book I have is a copy of BETWEEN BOER AND BRITON by Edward Stratemeyer. The previous owner was a specialist in English-language fictional accounts of the Boer war. His Ph.D. dissertation covered this topic and his interest continued. When I first pulled the book off the shelf, I saw markings throughout. I was ready to pass on it. Then I realized that he was commenting on the text. I bought the book and on the way home I learned more about this past owner. It made the book more interesting.
Another Stratemeyer bookI have is the lyrics for a comic opera called LOVE'S MAZE which he wrote. It was a copy he owned and has pencil corrections throughout. His brother did the music for the opera.
Doug Dorst and J.J. Abrams published a book with extensive marginalia in multiple hands and colors along with many bits of ephemera inserted amid the pages. The book is called simply "S" and the marked up book looks like a library copy of a title called THE SHIP OF THESEUS.
Some books with marginalia are also "association copies" and often these are the most interesting examples, transcending the struggling student marks in a book.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

View 1 reply

Aga SAga

I don't treat books like THINGS.
Never, ever done/do notes on them! Even they are only mine, I would like to leave them in a great condition, not distroyed.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Kandy Crosby-Hastings

Aga SAga, your destroyed is someone else's personalization.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Write a public reply…

Carol Wellbourn

If you use Post-Its in library books please remove them all before you return it!

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Paul Byrne

I’ve taught literature for many years and this picture is an example of what would be expected as part of a student’s (and teacher’s) close reading of a text. An alternate way (not for a novel this long of course) especially for poetry is for students …
See more

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Brian Christian III

Two types of readers, and I'm one who just can't write or highlight in a book. Probably because I would see other people's notes in school library books, and be judgemental about them, lol, so I didn't want to be subject to that myself!

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Pamela Skotnicki

I can’t seem to do it unless it’s a textbook. Kinda wish I had/did/do.

2

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Katarina Tomšič

Interesting comments. Maybe now I see that kind of readers different. Because I am so sensitive on my books that I cant even imagine to use more than pencil on them. An even this very rarely…
This kind of books in my opinion were always victims for me …
See more

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Azalea Therese

This is why I loved my dad's library so much specially after his death. He had at least 5 degrees I know of & a masters. Many of his books had his notes so when I used them for my homework, it helped me out so much. So long as I could read his handwriting. He was notorious for having a doctor's penmanship

. This is also why I love buying old books for my own library, specially the language ones. Finding useful notes is a gift!

2

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Agung Waspodo

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Paul Briody

I don't write in my books.

2

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Maria Sepers

I went through 16 years of education without making a single mark in any of my books. That is what notebooks for each subject are for. I graduated college with a 4.0 average, so I guess my method works...at least, for me!

2

14 h

Like

Reply
Share

John Johnson

Mortimer Adler always advocated having a conversation with a book’s author, but I was always at a loss for words.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Luis Vivanco Saavedra

That's what I call working a book.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Xose Manuel Alvariño

The old argument, "scribbling on books VS not scribbling on books." I tried it years ago but couldn´t, felt I was part of some desecration. In the end, though, like so much, it´s a matter of choice.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Lygia Grigoris

Careful analysis...

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Sisi Shi

Please don't do that to a library book (unfortunately I see it quite often) . It is too massy for others to read it. But if it is your book do whatever you want with it.

4 h

Like

Reply
Share

Sezan Mahmud

I read like this. I enjoy so much underlining and making notes on the books

18 h

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Alfred Marais

I did this in my early twenties but quickly stopped.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

FA DI LA

That's the reason i don't share the books i own . I'd rather buy you another copy than share the one I'm reading

12 h

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Donald Livingstone

I always believed that books were sacred objects, that they must be handed down to posterity in pristine condition, and that you must NEVER write in them, or underline or highlight anything, or -- God forbid!!! -- turn down the corners of a page. Adle…
See more

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Meropi Kyriazi

It is a no from me....

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Sa Ma

I mean, ok if it was an essay or a school book, but it's Anna Karenina, leave the beauty of those pages alone

5 h

Like

Reply
Share

Amanda Jeans

it was ingrained in me as a child not to mark up books ... Can't do it ...

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Konrad Tademar

No. I hate when people treat a book like a print out. Sorry this is vile. You can use post it notes or pencil, but this kind of treatment goes against everything I was taught growing up.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Dagnia Prieditis

Never ever wrote in a book.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

HjMazlan HjMuslim

Well read book & perhaps way too much scribbling that makes the reader happy & contented.

2

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Carol Allen-Gordon

Yes!

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Trace Miner-Jåcobsøn

My Bible looks like this!

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Amanda Arkebauer

I had notes in my copy of Jude the Obscure I lent it to someone and I never got it back.....I always regret that. Wish I had my copy back

23 h

Like

Reply
Share

Valentina Elbereth Elentari

I am always so torn about writing in the book. Lots of notes. Lots and lots of notes.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Za Za

Book name plz

9 h

Like

Reply
Share

Victoria Wilkinson

I am reading this copy below atm if it wasn't so nice I'd have scribbled on it too!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anna-Karenina-Leatherbound-Classics-Edition/dp/1435139623/ref=asc_df_1435139623/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=338909445333&hvpos=&hv…
See more

AMAZON.CO.UK
Anna Karenina: (Barnes & Noble Collectible Classics: Omnibus Edition) (Barnes & Noble Leatherbound Classic Collection)Anna Karenina: (Barnes & Noble Collectible Classics: Omnibus Edition) (Barnes & Noble Leatherbound Classic Collection)

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Joel Selby

And what a book to converse with!

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Phoebe Jane Rubillos Tambis

This is epic! Hahaha

1 h

Like

Reply
Share

Michaela Jean Amores Hicap

REAL REAL REAL REAL

11 h

Like

Reply
Share

Don Shull

I suppose. In the way that the squirrels that were in my trees and in my attic—but are now in my freezer—are appreciated.

4 h

Like

Reply
Share

Marina Vacherand

That’s deep reading!

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Jerry Seriatos

Conversing with and by the English language

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Jamshid Muslimov

Why??? Anna Karenina…

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Nick Flaherty

What in the House of Leaves is going on here?

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Heatherene Merrill

This rt here! Love it. I do it as well

18 h

Like

Reply
Share

Nur Hidayah Abu Bakar

My dad used to write on his Quran. He passed away 2 years ago. I still find it comforting to read his notes

19 h

Like

Reply
Share

Ron Steinman

A truly shared and enriching experience.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Daniel Szomor

If you know, you know

4

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Anas Habibu Sale

This is how a literature students read a book.

8 h

Like

Reply
Share

Rara Aguja

Ronaldo hahahaha

14 h

Like

Reply
Share

Wisanu Wanasawaeng

This book written by Leo Tolstoy!!! It deserves to do hardwork with it. After time pass, you can proud of yourself what's meaning with your life.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Álvaro Noldor

Terrible.

16 h

Like

Reply
Share

Pelobookworm Forgroupsonly

I love this so much

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Lance Lennon

I’m not a great fan of annotating and underlining though I must admit that I have done in some texts, always in pencil. Having said that I have come across old volumes that have been annotated and find the annotations quite fascinating, like looking in…
See more

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Elmira Kotscheva

Very well, might be a textbook. This a a good, healthy approach to learn it all. When I am reading a travel diary, biography or some adventurer‘s book, I use to check Google Earth, Wikipedia and other sources, also historical / ancient maps and www.beh…
See more

BEHINDTHENAME.COM
The Meaning and History of First Names - Behind the NameThe Meaning and History of First Names - Behind the Name

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Kathurima M'Inoti

The responses that this post has elicited just goes to show how diverse we’re in our views and approaches. Nothing less is to be expected from bibliophiles

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Alba Lux

Intimacy

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Penjelajah

Activ

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Jackie Swenson

Written Words School of English My husband loves 'Running and being' by Dr. George Sheehan. He dog-eared and under-lined the first one after many years and then purchased another copy. to continue his reading habit.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Jackie Swenson

Written Words School of English My husband loves 'Running and being' by Geogen Shahan - he dog-eared and underlined the first one and purchased another paper back to continue reading it.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Irena Janjic

As much as I wanted to love this classic I just can’t. Maybe I need to re-read it again.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Helen Richards

When you are studying it’s okay but some of the page tabs cover script. It is annoying that I can’t read it all, because reading someone else’s perspective is interesting.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Paul Ricchi

Why is everyone acting as if they owned this book? Bulletin: You will never read this copy, and the owner’s annotations are not your concern.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Paul Ricchi

If it is your book, you have every right to annotate it.
It is not destroyed, it may even be enhanced.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Linda Wolfe Zaner

Whoa! To each his own

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Queen Soleil

Been wanting to do this. Will start soon.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Cynthia Lofay Rosiek

Who is the translator of your volume, and do you like the translation?

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Kandy Crosby-Hastings

I am an annotater too.

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Nicole J. Williams-Ford

That’s what I do sometimes.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Jade Elyzabeth J

is what I've been doing with my school texts now.
I was inspired by a photo similar to this and got brown stickies

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Barbara Berrien

you did that with Anna Karenina!

I am in awe! Now I feel so superficial....

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Sa Ma

A bit too much ain't it?

5 h

Like

Reply
Share

Athina Stavrou

Leo Tolstoy would be proud . This book proves that you really studied Anna Karenina .

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Maria Hocker

Someone else does this ?

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

River Elora Wolfe Davis

Okay usually all this would bother me because you know it's usually all bright colors. I have this thing aboit a lot of color and chaos... I dont like it. but these colors are oddly calming and I like it.

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Antonio Carlos Vianna Braga

Minimalistic nec plus ultra. I have neither the precise calligraphy nor the courage.

16 h

Like

Reply
Share

Tamara Kohler

Umm no

1 d

Like

Reply
Share

Alonnis Chev Cent

What does it mean " conversing" ??....having an exchange of ideas with the book ?....expressing thoughts from each other ?...." conversing " means talk...speak...chat....consulting....discussing ....deliberating with the book ??....

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Edited

Jeanne Berry

2 d

Like

Reply
Share

Not-Yet God: Carl Jung, Teilhard de Chardin,... by Delio, Ilia

Not-Yet God:

Carl Jung, Teilhard de Chardin,

and the Relational Whole
by Ilia Delio (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars 8 ratings

Kindle
$40.72Read with our free app
Paperback
$49.13
11 New from $49.13

We are a species between axial periods. Thus, our religious myths are struggling to find new connections in a global, ecological order.

Delio proposes the new myth of relational holism;

that is, the search for a new connection to divinity in an age of quantum physics, evolution, and pluralism.

The idea of relational holism is one that is rooted in the God-world relationship, beginning with the Book of Genesis, but finds its real meaning in quantum physics and the renewed relationship between mind and matter.

Our story, therefore, will traverse across the fields of science, scripture, theology, history, culture and psychology.

Our guides for a new myth of relational holism are the psychoanalyst Carl Jung, and the Jesuit scientist-theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

The complex human can no longer be simplified to one view or another: one must see the whole of our existence or one does not see at all.

===

Review

"Over ten years ago, Ilia Delio boldly asserted that evolution is the metanarrative for our age, changing even our understanding of God. Engaging the God question in this evolutionary context requires the myth of the relational whole, the story of a living God in relationship with a living earth. God is incomplete, not‐yet, and we are incomplete, not‐yet! With her unique creative literary flair, Ilia Delio draws on the relational holism of the psychoanalyst Carl Jung (whom she names as the saint) and the Jesuit scientist‐theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (whom she describes a prophet) to create a new framework for thinking about God. The outcome is a highly original synthesis--spiritually inspiring and theologically ground-breaking."

--Diarmuid O'Murchu, author, Doing Theology in an Evolutionary Way

"Ilia Delio offers a brilliant and breathtaking look at the relational wholeness of God and world through the lenses of Teilhard, Jung, and contemporary science. If you're seeking faith in the future or a unitive vision that will revitalize our understanding of the participatory inter-becoming of God, humans, and world, this book is a must-read." --Sheri D. Kling, director, Process & Faith

"From the psycho-sentient depths of matter to the heights of divine becoming, Delio's cosmotheandric entanglement of Jung and Teilhard, modern science and ancient mysticism, achieve a new relational holism for a new axial age. The theology of the future will be "theohology"--experiential talk of the God-whole that is still coming into being." --Andrew M. Davis, The Center for Process Studies

"Ilia Delio is right: we need a new framework for thinking about God and salvation in an age of quantum physics and evolution that overcomes obstacles in the Church and beyond. Delio offers such an obstacle-overcoming framework: theohology. Building on insights from Jung, Teilhard, and many others, she provides a vision of the God who is the Whole of the whole, the distinct source of love but inseparable from everything that exists. This is an amazing book!" --Thomas Jay Oord, author, Open and Relational Theology

"The Not-Yet God is an important work and a major contribution to the fields of theology and depth psychology. In comparing Teilhard and Jung, Delio reveals new aspects of both thinkers and allows us to appreciate them from new angles. This work demonstrates wide reading and research in these fields and is written in a clear and concise language, so that not only specialists but general readers can glean many insights from Delio's excellent scholarship." --David Tacey, emeritus professor, La Trobe University, Australia; author, The Postsecular Sacred: Jung, Soul and Meaning in an Age of Change

===

Top reviews from other countries

Doctor TJR

5.0 out of 5 stars God and humanity in evolution.

Reviewed in the United States on 1 October 2023

Verified Purchase

I have studied Ilia, Teilhard, and a number of others, as well as the scientific developments discussed in this book for a number of years. She makes bold assertions about the need for a new spiritual narrative, reinterpreting our religious traditions in light of contemporary science.

Thomas Aquinas stated that if something is true, no matter what it’s source, it is from the Holy Spirit.

What if contemporary Christians could see modern science as the work of the Spirit in ongoing creation pulling us forward, perhaps toward Teilhard’s Omega.
We could then recognize that we are in the midst of, and part of, a process that is ongoing and will continue to change.
Human culture needs to evolve if we are to mitigate the potential for the disasters we are facing. As Ilia noted, Christianity should be a religion concerned with the future of humanity and a positive force in human evolution.
She makes a very good argument for this and good suggestions for how we should proceed.

11 people found this helpful

2023/12/07

Comstock laws - Wikipedia

Comstock laws - Wikipedia

Comstock laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The symbol of Comstock's New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.

The Comstock laws are a set of federal acts passed by the United States Congress under the Grant administration along with related state laws.[1] The "parent" act (Sect. 211) was passed on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use. This Act criminalized any use of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[2] obscenity, contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys, personal letters with any sexual content or information, or any information regarding the above items.

A similar federal act (Sect. 245) of 1909[3][4] applied to delivery by interstate "express" or any other common carrier (such as railroad), rather than delivery by the U.S. Post Office. In addition to these federal laws, about half of the states enacted laws related to the federal Comstock laws. These state laws are considered by women's rights activist Mary Dennett [1] to also be "Comstock laws". The laws were named after their chief proponent, U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock. Comstock received a commission from the Postmaster General to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Post Office Department.[5]

In Washington, D.C., where the federal government had direct jurisdiction, another Comstock act (Sect. 312) also made it illegal (punishable by up to five years at hard labor), to sell, lend, or give away any "obscene" publication, or article used for contraception or abortion.[5] Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1922 forbade the importation of any contraceptive information or means.[4]

Numerous failed attempts were made to repeal or modify these laws, and many of them (or portions of them) were declared unconstitutional. In a 1919 issue of the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Judge J. C. Ruppenthal, after reviewing the various laws (especially state laws) called the set of acts "haphazard and capricious" and lacking "any clear, broad, well-defined principle or purpose".[6]
Enforcement status[edit]

The restrictions on birth control in the Comstock laws were effectively rendered null and void by Supreme Court decisions Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)[7] and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).[8] Furthermore Congress removed the restrictions on contraception in 1971 but let the rest of the Comstock law stand.[9]

After the June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the enforceability of the Comstock laws became the subject of legal disputes. In April 2023, a district court judge ruled in the case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the Comstock Act made mailing of abortifacients illegal,[10] though this order conflicted with that of another court.[11]

Text of the parent federal law for the United States[edit]

This original Section 211 (enacted 1873) of the Federal Criminal Code (considered to be the "parent" of all the Comstock laws) reads as follows:

"Every obscene, lewd, or lascivious, and every filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character, and every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or 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 preventing conception or 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 of whom, or by what means any of the hereinbefore-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 conception may be prevented or abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and every letter, packet, or package, or other mail matter containing any filthy, vile, or indecent thing, device or substance and every paper, writing, advertisement or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can be, used or applied, for preventing conception or 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 hereby declared to be a non-mailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier. Whoever shall knowingly deposit or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be non-mailable, or shall knowingly take, or cause the same to be taken, from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Original section replaced by the parent federal law of the Comstock Laws[edit]

The following passage is the original Section 148 of the 1872 Amendment "An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the Statutes relating to the Post-office Department," before it was changed by the parent act of the Comstock Laws, Section 211 of the Federal Criminal Code, in 1873.[12](United States, Congress, "An Act to Revise, Consolidate, and Amend the Statutes Relating to the Post-Office Department." An Act to Revise, Consolidate, and Amend the Statutes Relating to the Post-Office Department, pp. 302–302.)

Sec. 148. "That no obscene book. pamphlet, picture, print, or any other publication of a vulgar or indecent character, or any letter upon the envelope of which, or postal card upon which scurrilous epithets may have been written or printed, or disloyal devices printed or engraved, shall be carried in the mail; and any person who shall knowingly deposit, or cause to be deposited, for mailing or for delivery, any such obscene publication, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall, for every such offense, be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, according to the circumstances and aggravation of the offense."

This section was amended by the second section of Chapter 258 of the third session of the forty-second Congress. The revision aimed to be more specific in its rhetoric, as well as condemning the act more than the prior edition, including the advertisement of mentioned obscenities as a punishable offense. Another way this was conveyed in the amendment was by also intensifying the punishment of being convicted of this offense by increasing the fine and imprisonment time intervals, while also clarifying that imprisonment includes hard labor. The revision included the advertisement of mentioned obscenities as a punishable offense.
Text of the federal law for the District of Columbia[edit]

The text of this act (sect. 312 of the Federal Criminal Code) read, in part:[13]

Be it enacted.... That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States... shall sell... or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States... he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.

This was considered to be one of the most sweeping of all the Comstock laws. Forbidden items may legally be possessed if they are only for one's own use and will not be distributed to others.
Current statute[edit]

The Comstock laws are now codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 71, §§ 1460–1470
State laws on birth control (contraception), etc.[edit]
Per Ruppenthal 1919[edit]

The following is copied from lead part (pp. 48–50) of Ruppenthal.[14] Modified text is in italics with reasons for such modification in a footnote. Note that Ruppenthal and Dennett differ on some topics and the research to determine who is correct has not yet been done.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 10, Issue 1, Article 5. 1919. Criminal Statutes on Birth Control; J. C. Ruppenthal.[15]full text

In the United States, laws relating to birth control seem to have been developed since about 1870. Congress, the legislatures of nineteen states and Puerto Rico, and the commission of the Canal Zone, have enacted statutes that clearly and definitely refer to the prevention of conception in women as a practice to be deterred [16] by such laws. In only one state, Connecticut, is the actual act of using contraception a crime,[17] In Canada, at least Ontario has such a law deterring contraception'. Twenty-two more states of the Union, and also Hawaii have statutes which the courts, with liberality of construction or strictness, hold to apply or not apply criminally to the matter of birth control, at least through prevention of conception, or "contraception." The District of Columbia, and the states of Rhode Island and Florida have kindred enactments, relating in the states to causing miscarriage of a pregnant woman, and in the District to abortion. Four states, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and North Carolina, and also Alaska, appear to have no legislation that either certainly or possibly may be held to apply to birth control. All the forty- nine sets of enactments referred to, are found in the statute books under "obscenity" and "offenses against morals," as headings. In most cases the phraseology relating to contraception is found embedded among many clauses relating to pornographic or non-mailable matter, to indecent and immoral printing, writing, painting and the like. Colorado, Indiana and Wyoming mention "self-pollution," and Massachusetts names "self-abuse" along with abortion and prevention of conception.

Clear and definite laws on contraception are found on the statute books of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Washington and Wyoming-eighteen-as well as Puerto Rico, Ontario, the Canal Zone and the United States. The federal laws are quite full in expression, and perhaps served as model for most of the states.

If a court regards written matter relating to contraception or means to accomplish this, as "obscene, vulgar and indecent," then laws apply also in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin-twenty-five in number. In some states a limitation is "if they manifest a tendency to corrupt the morals of youth," or morals generally.

"Articles and instruments of immoral use or purpose" are denounced, but no specific purpose or object of such is set out, in the laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Utah. Would courts hold that contraceptives or what are today called sex toys were such articles? In Maryland "obscene and indecent" books are mentioned, and "obscene" matters in South Carolina, with no more specific designation. In Ontario the law very widely includes the assertion or warranty of the offender, as the language is "any article intended or represented as a means of preventing conception or causing abortion." To make prosecutions more easy, Idaho provides that the complaint need not set out any portion of the language alleged to have been unlawfully used. To aid in capture of contraband articles, instruments and literature or other things, search warrants or seizure, or both, are authorized in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho and Nevada.

Where advice or information as to abortion is forbidden, though some states, as Minnesota and New York, carefully discriminate against "unlawful abortion," others, as Kansas and Iowa, say, "procuring abortion," with no intimation that such could, in any case, be lawful. Kansas, however, in another statute-as to manslaughter of a woman pregnant or her child-excepts "when it shall be necessary to save the life of the mother," and thus inferentially distinguishes acts as of two classes.

While some statutes are word for word alike in several states, most of them vary in scope. Among the forbidden acts, in connection with articles, instruments, books, papers, etc., are to "exhibit" (United States law and Colorado) ; "bring into the state" (Alabama) ; "import" (Hawaii) ; "buy," "sell," "lend," "keep for sale," "have in possession," (Iowa) ; "have in possession with intent to sell," "have possession with or without intent to sell" (Indiana) ; "advertise," "distribute" (New York); "manufacture," ('Missouri, New York); "has possession with intent to utter or expose to view or to sell," "for gratuitous distribution" (in Ohio, drug or nostrum; in Kansas, literature);. "conveying notice, hint or reference to," under "real or fictitious name" (Rhode Island); "give information orally" (New York, Minnesota, Indiana); "write, compose, or publish" (notice or advertisement, in Arizona); "manifesting a tendency to the corruption of the morals of youth or of morals generally," (Hawaii) ; "cautions females against its use when in pregnancy" (Ohio); "drug or nostrum purporting to be exclusively for the use of females" (Ohio). To meet the ingenuity of evasive devices, New Jersey includes all persons "who shall in any manner, by recommendation against its use or otherwise give or cause to be given, or aid in giving any information, how or where any of the (literature, instruments, medicines, etc.) may be had or seen or bought or sold." Whatever is prohibited directly to anyone is usually expanded in terms to include aiding in any way toward the forbidden end.

A few exceptions from the sweeping provisions are incorporated. In Ontario the offense must be "knowingly, without lawful excuse or justification ;" in New Jersey, "without just cause." In some states the law provides that it "shall not be construed to affect teaching in medical colleges" (Colorado, Indiana, Ohio); "nor standard medical books" (Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio) ; "nor the practice of regular practitioners of medicine and druggists (Colorado) in their legitimate 'business" (Ohio); "nor works of scientific character, or on anatomy, surgery or obstetrics" (Kentucky); "article or instrument used or applied by physicians is not … indecent." In Connecticut possession of the things forbidden is unlawful "unless with intent to aid in their suppression or in enforcing the provisions" of the law.

Almost everything denounced under any of these laws is nonmailable under the laws of the United States, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and New York. Delivery of such to express or railroad companies is forbidden by the United States, Illinois, Indiana and New York. Besides forbidding the deposit of such matters in the mails, Colorado adds "or with any person."

From the foregoing it may be seen that no general principle runs through the statutes of all the states, etc. As with laws everywhere that impinge upon sex matters in any way, there is more of taboo and superstition in the choice and chance, the selection and caprice, the inclusions and exclusions of these several enactments than any clear, broad, well-defined principle or purpose underlying them. Without such principle, well-defined and generally accepted, the various laws must remain largely haphazard and capricious.
Per Dennett 1926, only on contraception[edit]

This section is in list format but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (August 2018)

This section is copied directly from Appendix No. 1 (pp. 280–) of the book "Birth Control Laws ..." by Mary Dennett, 1926. In contrast to Ruppenthal (previous section) Dennett (researched by Dilla) only deals with the contraception aspects of the Comstock laws.

The Scope of the Various State Laws Is Given in the Following Compilation

The research work was done by Harriette M. Dilla, LL.B., Ph.D., formerly of the Department of Sociology and Economics of Smith College.

Twenty-four States (and Puerto Rico) specifically penalize contraceptive knowledge in their obscenity laws.

Twenty-four States (and the District of Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii) have obscenity laws, under which, because of the Federal precedent, contraceptive knowledge may be suppressed as obscene, although it is not specifically mentioned. Obscenity has never been defined in law. This produces a mass of conflicting, inconsistent judicial decision, which would be humorous, if it were not such a mortifying revelation of the limitations and perversions of the human mind.

Twenty-three States make it a crime to publish or advertise contraceptive information. They are as follows: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wyoming; also Puerto Rico.

Twenty-two States include in their prohibition drugs and instruments for the prevention of conception. There are far fewer in this category per Ruppenthal, They are as follows: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wyoming and Puerto Rico.

Eleven States make it a crime to have in one's possession any instruction for contraception. These are: Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming.

Fourteen States make it a crime to tell anyone where or how contraceptive knowledge may be acquired. These are : Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wyoming.

Six States prohibit the offer to assist in any method whatever which would lead to knowledge by which contraception might be accomplished. These are: Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Puerto Rico.

Eight States prohibit depositing in the Post Office any contraceptive information. These are: Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming.[18]

One State, Colorado, prohibits the bringing into the State of any contraceptive knowledge.

Four States have laws authorizing the search for and seizure of contraceptive instructions, and these are: Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma. In all these States but Idaho, the laws authorize the destruction of the things seized.

Certain exemptions from the penalties of these laws are made by the States for

Medical Colleges: Colorado Indiana Missouri Nebraska Ohio Pennsylvania Wyoming

Medical Books: Colorado Indiana Kansas Missouri Nebraska Ohio Pennsylvania Wyoming

Physicians: Colorado Indiana Nevada New York Ohio Wyoming

Druggists: Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Wyoming.

Seventeen States prohibit any information which corrupts morals, 12 of them, as starred in the following list, particularly mentioning the morals of the young. This is an interesting point of view of the frequently offered objection to freedom of access to contraceptive knowledge, that it will demoralize the young. These States are: Colorado, Delaware,* Florida,* Iowa,* Maine,* Massachusetts,* Michigan,* Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,* Vermont,* Virginia,* West Virginia,* Wisconsin * and Hawaii.

Two States have no obscenity statutes, but police power in these States can suppress contraceptive knowledge as an "Obscenity" or "public nuisance," by virtue of the Federal precedent. These States are: North Carolina and New Mexico.
Objective of the laws[edit]

The Comstock laws targeted pornography, contraceptive equipment, and such educational materials as descriptions of contraceptive methods and other reproductive health-related materials. Of particular note were advertisements for abortifacients found in penny papers, which offered pills to women as treatment for "obstruction of their monthly periods."[19]

Comstock's ideas of what is "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" were quite broad. During his time of greatest power, some anatomy textbooks were prohibited from being sent to medical students by the United States Postal Service.[20]

However, it is claimed that Comstock had "no intention of penalizing normal birth control information" (with "normal" likely meaning within marriage). Yet the laws engendered by him did significantly penalize birth control information for all uses.[21] Comstock (and others) thought that contraceptives (and information about them) would be used (or misused) by young people for premarital sex (then considered to be wrong and immoral by some people). Thus, Comstock's reasoning seems to have been that if one banned all contraceptive information, etc., the morals of youth were less likely to be corrupted.[22]
Definition of obscenity[edit]

Major parts of the Comstock Acts hinge on definitions, particularly of obscenity. Though the courts originally adopted the British Hicklin test, in 1957 an American test was put into place in Roth v. United States, in which it was determined that obscenity was material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" to the "average person, applying contemporary community standards," and was, "utterly without redeeming social importance."[23]
Origins[edit]

According to Paul R. Abramson, the widespread availability of pornography during the American Civil War (1861–1865) gave rise to an anti-pornography movement, culminating in the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873,[24] but which also dealt with birth control and abortion issues. A major supporter and active persecutor for the moral purposes of the Comstock laws was the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, led by Comstock.
YMCA[edit]

In February 1866, the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) of New York's executive committee privately distributed a report that was written by Cephas Brainerd and Robert McBurney entitled, "A Memorandum Respecting New-York as a Field for Moral and Christian Effort Among Young Men." This memorandum linked the main message of the YMCA to facts and figures that were drawn from the census, tax data, and licensing reports. All of this data was used to support the idea that many of the younger, more unsupervised members of the society had more than enough free time in the evenings to spend in billiard saloons, gambling halls, porter houses, and houses of prostitution and assignation.

The 1866 memorandum supported a plan to construct a centrally located building to better serve the younger men of New York. Not only was the building to support the spiritual, mental, and social well-being of the young men, it was also suggested to benefit their physical condition.[5] However, the memorandum was also used as a "call to action" to investigate whether or not a law was in place to reprimand and confiscate "obscene" literature. After conferring with a district attorney, a committee was organized to write up a bill to be pushed through the New York State legislature. In 1868, the bill was passed; however, it was not as strong as the association would have liked it to be. After the passing of the bill, the YMCA appointed a committee to oversee the enforcement of the law. This law included the important power of search and seizure which authorized magistrates to issue warrants that allowed police officers "to search for, seize and take possession of such obscene and indecent books, papers, articles and things" and hand them over to the district attorney. If the indicted party ended up being found guilty, the materials that were confiscated in the raid were destroyed.[5]
Anthony Comstock[edit]

Anthony Comstock stated that he was determined to act the part of a good citizen, meaning that he had every intention of upholding the law. He started off by beginning a campaign against the saloons in his New York neighborhood of Brooklyn.

The biggest contributor to igniting Comstock's mission to rid of any and all obscene material was when one of his dear friends died. Comstock blamed his death on him being "led astray and corrupted and diseased". As for a person to blame, Comstock laid all of it on Charles Conroy, who had sold his friend "erotic materials" from a basement on Warren Street. After this incident, he continued the crusade throughout his neighborhood and while doing so, kept a ledger that had a record of every arrest he had made.

Comstock became linked with the YMCA shortly after writing a financial request for funding of his efforts. When YMCA President Morris Jesup became aware of the request he visited Comstock and granted the requested funds. in addition to providing the money to support his work, Jesup paid Comstock a bonus. Comstock was invited to speak before the YMCA's Committee on Obscene Literature (later renamed the Committee for Suppression of Vice) to present how he used the funds the organization had provided. Comstock was eventually hired by the association to help fight for the suppression of vice.

The motivation for Comstock's support of Federal legislation was "The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case" and the publicity for the case provided by Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin; writers for Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly. After Woodhull's acquittal, Comstock began to see weaknesses in the 1872 law. The federal statute did not include newspapers, nor did it specify that birth control information and appliances were "obscene". Comstock made it a goal to include better language in a new law (later known as the Comstock Law).

To do this, Comstock drafted a new federal bill and with the sponsorship of Representative Clinton L. Merriam, he met with members of the House and illustrated his concern by showing them obscene materials, obtained via the gaps in the existing legislation. Comstock used a connection with Justice William Strong to pass the bill on to William Windom, a senator from Minnesota, with the request that he take the bill to the floor of the Senate. While the bill was being revised, a provision with similar effect of the bill was attached in a federal appropriations bill and was authorized by Congress. The legislation enabled a new special agent in the United States Post Office. This agent held the power to confiscate immoral materials sent in the mail and arrest those sending it.[5]

Although Comstock was awarded the position of special agent, the Committee for the Suppression of Vice requested that he not be given a government salary.[25] In the spring of 1873, the committee became separate from the YMCA, as New York gave them a charter as the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. While the Comstock Law originally authorized police assistance to the group in censoring materials and gave half of the fines collected under this law, the rewards were removed a month later. By preventing Comstock from receiving a federal salary, as well as any monetary rewards from the state, the organization's directors attempted to prevent claims of self-interested motives. They also tried to ensure that Comstock was dependent on their donations.

Comstock derived his full-time salary from the vice society. At the same time, he was able to hold a federal commission that allowed him to secure warrants for arrests and take and destroy publications and other materials. Therefore, New York, as well as the federal government, gave him most of the responsibility to implement moral censorship. They entrusted that responsibility to Comstock for forty-two years until his death in 1915. Over that period of time, he filled the two positions, one in the Post Office and the other in the New York vice society.

Extended works of Comstock along the lines of the Comstock laws include a petition from the Committee for the Suppression of Vice to include obscene written works that were enclosed in a sealed envelope, an item that was not covered in the renditions of the Comstock Laws, as an item to convict for a punishable offence.[26] Other works that he tried to enclose under the range of the laws that used his namesake include international art pieces that depicted scantily-clad women, textbooks for medical students, and other items that seem to steer away from the original theme of the laws. These misguided efforts left some of his original supporters to doubt his intentions. Comstock's excision of authoritative power as a special agent Postal Inspector included over 3,600 people prosecuted and the destruction of over 160 tons (150,000 kg) of literature found to be obscene.[27]

Contraceptives in the history of Christianity[edit]

Until the mid-20th Century, Christian leaders generally have been opposed to contraception. The first recorded show of the Christian faith being against contraceptives can be found in the Didache, an early Christian treatise written around 70 AD which condemns the use of contraception along with abortion, infanticide, adultery, and other practices.[28] This theme of Christian culture continued through the centuries until some churches accepted the use of contraceptives, limited at first to married couples, beginning with the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church.[29] Previously, the only contraception in use for followers of Christianity was the calendar or rhythm method, which is the tracking of fertility in a woman's body as to avoid having sexual relations within time frames where the woman would be fertile, but instead when she may be considered the least fertile of her menstrual cycle.

Judicial views[edit]
Obscenity[edit]
See also: United States obscenity law

In 1957, Samuel Roth, who ran a literary business in New York City, was charged with distributing "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail, advertising and selling a publication called American Aphrodite ("A Quarterly for the Fancy-Free"). The publication contained literary erotica and nude photography.

The Comstock Law was terminated in 1957, just before the Roth v. United States court case, but it defined obscenity laws as anything that appealed to the prurient interest of the consumer. In a similar case, Alberts v. California, David Alberts ran a mail-order business from Los Angeles and was convicted under a Californian statute for publishing pictures of "nude and scantily-clad women". The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and affirmed the Roth test.

Under the Comstock laws, postal inspectors can bar "obscene" content from the mails at any time,[30] thus having a huge impact on publishers of magazines.[31] In One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958), as a follow-on to Roth, the Supreme Court granted free press rights around homosexuality.[32]

The Comstock laws banned distribution of sex education information, based on the premise that it was obscene and led to promiscuous behavior[33] Mary Ware Dennett was fined $300 in 1928, for distributing a pamphlet containing sex education material. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), led by Morris Ernst, appealed her conviction and won a reversal, in which judge Learned Hand ruled that the pamphlet's main purpose was to "promote understanding".[33]

Contraception[edit]

In 1915, architect William Sanger was charged under the New York law against disseminating contraceptive information.[34] His wife Margaret Sanger was similarly charged in 1915 for her work The Woman Rebel. Sanger circulated this work through the U.S. postal service, effectively violating the Comstock Law. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease.[35]

The prohibition of devices advertised for the explicit purpose of birth control was not overturned for another eighteen years. During World War I, U.S. servicemen were the only members of the Allied forces sent overseas without condoms.[36]

In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[35]

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships.[37] Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well.[38]

In favor of the laws[edit]
Obscenity arguments[edit]

As the chief proponent of the law, many of Comstock's justifications revolved around the effects that all of the obscene literature would have on children. He argued that the corruption in the schools and in the home were because of all of the obscene literature that the youth had easy access to. He also argued that the vast amounts of "obscenity" would cause for the sanctity of marriage to be corrupted along with the power of the church. Comstock mainly focused on voicing his concerns to families of privilege; this is how he gained a majority of his support.[39]

Clinton L. Merrian, who introduced the bill to the House of Representatives, played on the idea that obscenity was a direct threat to manhood and that in order to protect the children, obscene materials needed to be confiscated.[39]

Contraception arguments[edit]

The Comstock laws, in an alleged "haphazard and capricious" [6] manner, restricted contraception. It was argued that this would help prevent "illicit" sexual relations between unmarried persons since without contraception, the unmarried would be deterred from having sex due to the possibility of undesired pregnancy. When the Birth Control Movement in the mid-1920s was attempting to get Congress to eliminate birth control restrictions from the federal Comstock laws, Mary Dennett (the author of "Birth Control Laws ..." 1926) interviewed a (non-typical) congressman who strongly supported retention of the birth control restrictions in the Comstock laws. He put it this way (avoiding any use of the words "sex" or "pregnancy"):[40] "Think how it would be that night, when the young girl goes out with the boy, and she can’t help thinking, what difference will it make if nothing ever shows? And then she will forget all about character, and will let herself go, whereas if she was afraid of the practical results, she wouldn’t. Yes, there are thousands of girls that are held back just that way."

To this, Mary Dennet asked if he did not know that there was such a lot of contraceptive knowledge in circulation—and that most of it was bad knowledge too—that the number of girls that could be protected by their ignorance was diminishing every hour, and that there was absolutely no effort at enforcement of the laws? He said people argued that way about enforcing the prohibition laws, but he thought it (Comstock laws re contraception) ought to be enforced and could be.

Regarding older, never-married women having sex with contraception, the same congressman talking about a group of women clerks, whose housing was visible through his office window: "a lot of them are confirmed old maids too, but I wouldn’t trust what would happen to them, if they all knew they could do what they pleased and no one would be the wiser." He was thus implying that the Comstock laws were good because they not only deterred young girls from having premarital sex but also deterred "old maids" (derogatory term for older, never-married women) from sexual relations.

Father Charles Coughlin, a famous "radio priest",[41] argued before a congressional committee in 1934 that even use of contraception by a married couple was wrong. He characterized such non-productive sex as "legalized prostitution." There was heckling from the audience, and one woman called out to Coughlin, "You're ridiculous."

Opposition to the laws[edit]
1878 repeal attempt[edit]

Three years after the enactment of the federal law, a petition was circulated by the National Liberal League for its repeal in 1876, garnering between 40,000 and 70,000 signatures.[42] Although the press of the country favored repeal, their efforts were impeded when Comstock showed samples of pornographic material to congressmen who were serving on the same committee which the repeal act had been referred to. Comstock claimed that the pamphlets he had shared, a "collection of smutty circulars describing sex depravity",[43] had been distributed by mail to youths and other persons.

In March 1879, the National Defense Association submitted a letter of affidavits to Samuel Sullivan Cox, a Democratic New York State Representative, for review with the Committee on Post Office and Post Roads.[44] The National Defense Association had been established shortly after the Comstock Laws were enacted in order to combat the resulting loss of civil liberties and restrictions on freedom of the press, and to preserve access to works of art or literature which were deemed obscene under the Comstock Act.

The letter of affidavits had been sent in support of the petition from the National Liberal League. Comstock dismissed the petition, alleging that the list was made up of forged signatures and false names. He also complained that "the public press throughout the country" had supported the petitioners and their movement.[45]
Birth control movement failures[edit]

After this failure to repeal, there was no concerted effort to change the laws until the start of the birth control movement in the United States in 1914 led by Margaret Sanger.[46] Between 1917 and 1925 Bills were introduced in California (1917),[47] New York (1917, 1921,3,4,5),[48] Connecticut (1923, 1925),[49] and New Jersey (1925)[50] to make the anti-birth control parts of the state laws less restrictive. In both California and Connecticut, the anti-birth control part of the law would be simply eliminated which in Connecticut would mean that its outlawing of contraception would be revoked. All these state attempts at change failed to come to a vote so no change happened.

There were also failed attempts to eliminate the restrictions on birth control from the federal laws, the first starting in 1919 where the bill's supposed sponsor failed to introduce the bill. In 1923 a bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee (of Congress). While it was thought that the majority of this committee favored the bill, they evaded voting on it.[51] There were also more attempts at change in the 1920s.
Eugenics argument[edit]

In response to the argument that facilitating contraception would encourage promiscuity, a rebuttal was that if such persons used contraception, there would tend to be fewer people like them since fewer people would inherit inclinations towards promiscuity.[52]
Free Love[edit]

The Free Love Movement in Victorian America was one group that made sustained attempts to repeal the Comstock Laws and discredit anything related to the anti-vice movement. This movement despised the law because they believed it embodied the sexual oppression of women. The free-lovers argued that neither the church nor the state had the right to regulate an individual's sexual relations and that women were sexually enslaved by the institution of marriage. This made the free-lovers the number one target of Comstock and his crusade against obscenity.[39]

Comstock actively targeted individuals associated with the Free Love Movement, particularly those involved in advocating for birth control and the rejection of traditional marriage.[53] He used the Comstock Act of 1873, which criminalized the distribution of obscene materials through the mail, as a tool to prosecute and censor those he deemed promoting immoral or indecent ideas.[54] One of Comstock's notable targets was Victoria Woodhull, a prominent figure in the Free Love Movement and an advocate for women's rights. Woodhull and her sister, Tennessee Claflin, published a newspaper called "Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly" that promoted radical ideas about sexuality and challenged traditional norms.[55] Comstock had Woodhull arrested and charged with obscenity for publishing information about contraception.[53]