## Facts

- Corporate publishers mailed three “physique” magazines (*MANual*, *Trim*, and *Grecian Guild Pictorial*) containing largely nude or near-nude male photographs, model names, and photographers’ addresses.
- The magazines also included advertisements by independent photographers offering nudist photographs for sale.
- A postmaster detained six parcels (405 copies) sent to Chicago, treating the magazines as potentially nonmailable under 18 U.S.C. § 1461.
- After a Post Office evidentiary hearing, a Judicial Officer found the magazines were primarily aimed at homosexual readers, lacked merit, and appealed to prurient interest, and ruled them nonmailable on two theories: (1) the magazines were obscene; and (2) they provided information on where obscene matter could be obtained (via ads and addresses).
- Publishers sued to enjoin enforcement; the district court denied relief and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether magazines consisting largely of nude or near-nude male photographs were “obscene” and therefore nonmailable under 18 U.S.C. § 1461.
2. Whether the magazines were nonmailable because they provided information as to where obscene matter could be obtained through advertisements and addresses.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1461 authorizes the Postmaster General to exclude allegedly obscene material from the mails through an administrative process without prior judicial determination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment upholding the nonmailability order.
- A plurality concluded the magazines were not obscene within § 1461 because, even assuming prurient appeal to a particular audience, the photographs did not meet the statute’s requirement of patent offensiveness associated with “hard-core” pornography.
- The plurality also rejected the “information” ground because the record did not establish that the advertised or referenced materials were themselves obscene under § 1461.
- A separate concurrence concluded § 1461 does not authorize the Postmaster General to create an administrative censorship procedure to bar materials from the mails; enforcement must proceed through the criminal process in court.
- One Justice concurred on broader First Amendment grounds; one Justice dissented and would have upheld the postal determination.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1461, pictorial material is not “obscene” solely because it is sexually arousing or appeals to prurient interest; to be excluded as obscene it must also be patently offensive in a “hard-core” sense.
- The intended or predominant audience (including a stigmatized subgroup) does not, by itself, determine statutory obscenity.
- The § 1461 “information” prohibition requires proof that the materials being advertised or identified are obscene within the statute; generalized references to nude photography are insufficient.
- Section 1461 does not confer authority on the Postmaster General to institute an administrative process to bar allegedly obscene matter from the mails absent judicial determination through the criminal enforcement framework.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside the postal nonmailability ruling, holding that the magazines’ nude male photographs did not qualify as obscene under § 1461 on the record presented, that the advertisements did not trigger the statute’s “information” clause without proof of underlying obscenity, and that § 1461 did not authorize administrative exclusion of mail without court proceedings.


Manual Enters., Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962)