ual, Trim, and Grecian Guild Pictorial, which had been mailed from Alexandria, Va. The Post Office based its seizure on a law nearly 100 years old the Comstock Act, named after the great moral purifier and busybody of the nineteenth century. By this law obscene material may not be sent through the mails; nor may material be mailed which advertises and informs where obscene materials may be secured. The Post Office held that the three magazines were unmailable on both these counts. The publisher of the magazines protested this ruling and took the case to the courts.

The magazines consisted largely of photographs of nude or nearly nude young men. The sex organs were not exposed in any instance, but they were often poorly concealed. The government attorney pointed out to the trial court: "Although none of the pictures directly exposed the model's genitals, some showed his pubic hair and others suggested what appeared to be a semi-erect penis."

Both the publisher and the government agreed on certain points: the magazines would appeal to the "prurient interest" of male homosexuals. That is, they would arouse impure sexual responses. They were admittedly designed particularly for male homosexuals, and normally oriented persons would probably ignore them completely.

Are magazines obscene merely because they arouse impure sexual reactions in some persons? The Court said no. When Congress banned obscene matter from the mails, it never intended the term obscene to be so narrowly applied. There must be TWO tests for obscenity, and material may be banned from the mails only if it fails BOTH tests. In addition to showing that the magazines have an impure appeal, the government must also show that they are "patently offensive," that is, indecent on their face. They must tend to deprave and

corrupt. They must be unnecessarily candid in handling matters of sex. If this second safeguard were overlooked, the American people might be deprived of many worthwhile works of art, literature, and science. Many acknowledged masterworks might well have a prurient appeal, at least to some people, even though they were innocent of any indecent or disturbing effect on the community.

Having set up this test, the Justices looked at the magazines to see for themselves whether they were offensive. They found that the magazines were "dismally unpleasant, uncouth, and tawdry" (a matter of opinion, to be sure), but not obscene. After all, any museum displays scores of examples of female nudity without offending any sane person; and these photographs of male nudes were hardly any more objectionable.

The second complaint against the magazines was that they advertised where obscene materials might be obtained. In enticing terms advertisers offered to supply photographs of nude men even more fascinating than those printed in the magazines. Even if the advertised photos should be obscene, said the Court, the publisher of the magazines could be held responsible only if he knew that they were obscene. Nobody had shown that he had such guilty knowledge, and without having shown it, the Post Office could not ban the magazines.

The decision on obscenity was written by only two Justices. Three other Justices felt that the Post Office had no authority to ban the magazines, even if they were obscene. If postal officials felt that the magazines fell under the obscenity ban, they should have charged them before a proper court, and the court would decide whether they were unmailable. But the Post Office had not followed this procedure.

Justice Black also decided that the