Facts
- Sam Ginsberg operated a stationery store and luncheonette in Bellmore, New York, that sold magazines including sexually explicit “girlie” magazines.
- In October 1965, Ginsberg sold four such magazines to a 16-year-old boy on two occasions; the purchases were arranged by the boy’s parents and later by a police officer.
- The magazines contained nude photographs; some also included written descriptions of sexual excitement and sexual conduct.
- New York Penal Law § 484-h made it unlawful knowingly to sell to minors under 17 materials depicting defined “nudity” that are “harmful to minors,” including magazines that, taken as a whole, meet that standard.
- The statute defined “harmful to minors” using elements tied to (1) prurient appeal to minors, (2) patent offensiveness under prevailing adult community standards for what is suitable for minors, and (3) utter lack of redeeming social importance for minors.
- After a bench trial, the court found the magazines met the statutory criteria and convicted Ginsberg for violating § 484-h.
Issues
- Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prohibit the sale to minors of sexual material deemed “harmful to minors” even if the material is not obscene for adults.
- Whether § 484-h is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause because its definitions fail to give adequate notice and enforcement standards.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held that New York could constitutionally restrict minors’ access to certain sexual materials by applying a more restrictive standard for minors than for adults (variable obscenity).
- The Court held that § 484-h, including the definition of “harmful to minors,” was not void for vagueness.
- The Court emphasized the law’s limited scope: it regulated commercial sale to minors while leaving adults free to purchase the same materials.
Legal Principles
- The State may provide minors a more restricted right than adults to access sexual materials and may define obscenity differently as applied to minors when rationally related to protecting minors’ welfare.
- The State may enact laws that support parental authority over children’s exposure to sexual materials and independently protect minors from harm.
- A “harmful to minors” definition that tracks established obscenity elements (prurient appeal, patent offensiveness by community standards, and lack of redeeming value), and that uses adult community standards for suitability for minors, can provide sufficient notice and enforcement guidance to satisfy due process.
- Age-based restrictions limited to sales to minors, without banning adult access, are more likely to withstand First Amendment facial challenges.
Conclusion
The Court upheld New York’s prohibition on selling specified sexual materials to minors, recognizing that states may apply a stricter obscenity standard for minors than for adults and concluding that the statute’s “harmful to minors” definition was sufficiently definite to satisfy due process.