## Facts

- Ralph Ginzburg and corporations he controlled published and mailed *EROS*, *Liaison*, and *The Housewife’s Handbook on Selective Promiscuity*, along with related advertising circulars.
- The federal government prosecuted them under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 for using the mails to distribute allegedly obscene materials.
- *EROS* was an expensive hardcover publication centered on sexual themes; *Liaison* was a sexual newsletter; *Housewife’s Handbook* purported to be a sexual autobiography urging selective extramarital sexual activity.
- The prosecution relied not only on the content of the publications but also on evidence that they were commercially marketed for prurient appeal (“pandering”).
- Ginzburg attempted to obtain mailing privileges from towns with sexually suggestive names (Blue Ball and Intercourse, Pennsylvania) and ultimately mailed from Middlesex, New Jersey.
- Advertising for *EROS* and *Liaison* emphasized “unrestricted” sexual expression and promised explicit sexual content.
- *Housewife’s Handbook* was promoted as having scientific or professional interest, but marketing focused on sexual imagery and distribution was aimed at the general public.
- The trial court convicted; the Third Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, in applying the constitutional obscenity standard under 18 U.S.C. § 1461, a court may consider evidence that a defendant deliberately marketed materials for prurient appeal (“pandering”), especially where the obscenity question is close.
2. Whether convictions may stand when promotional materials may not be independently obscene but are used to show the publications were commercially exploited as erotica.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that evidence the defendants deliberately represented the publications as erotically arousing and exploited them as erotica for prurient appeal supported the finding of obscenity under the governing standard.
- The Court treated the manner of promotion (including circulars and the efforts to mail from suggestively named locales) as relevant contextual evidence in classifying the materials.
- The Court stated that sexual subject matter is not automatically unprotected; works with sexual content may be protected when presented in art, literature, or science, but the marketing here supported an obscenity determination.

## Legal Principles

- Obscenity may be assessed under the Roth formulation: whether, to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.
- In a close obscenity case, evidence of “pandering”—deliberate marketing and commercial exploitation of prurient appeal—may be considered to support a finding that the material is obscene.
- Profit alone is not determinative, but purposeful exploitation of titillation through promotion and distribution practices may show the material is offered as pornography rather than for serious literary, artistic, scientific, or educational purposes.
- Advertising and other distribution context can be probative of how the material is presented to the public and the intended appeal of the publication.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld federal obscenity convictions on the ground that, even under the Roth standard, a trier of fact may consider evidence of deliberate commercial promotion of sexual materials for prurient appeal, and such “pandering” context can support an obscenity finding where the content question is otherwise close.


Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)