## Facts

- Mary Ware Dennett authored and distributed a pamphlet titled *The Sex Side of Life: An Explanation for Young People* to assist parents and educators in teaching adolescents about sex.
- The pamphlet used anatomical terminology, treated sexual impulse as normal, discussed sex as potentially joyful within loving relationships, and urged self-control and responsibility.
- It warned against venereal disease, prostitution, promiscuity, and “perversion,” aiming to discourage harmful conduct rather than to excite readers.
- The government prosecuted Dennett under federal postal obscenity provisions based on her mailing a copy of the pamphlet to a married woman.
- Dennett was convicted in federal district court and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a serious sex-education pamphlet mailed to an adult recipient qualifies as “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” under the federal postal obscenity statute.
2. Whether obscenity may be determined by isolated explicit passages, or instead requires assessment of the work’s dominant character, purpose, and distribution context.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the conviction.
- The court held the pamphlet, considered as a whole and in its instructional setting, was not “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” within the statute.
- The court rejected treating frank sexual description alone as sufficient for criminal liability where the work’s dominant aim is education rather than sexual stimulation.

## Legal Principles

- Obscenity under the postal statute depends on the work’s dominant character and purpose when evaluated as a whole, not on selected passages read in isolation.
- A defendant’s good faith does not immunize mailing matter that is actually obscene, but the work’s apparent purpose, audience, and manner of distribution inform whether the material is obscene.
- “Circumstances of publication,” including intended readership and controlled distribution through responsible adults, are relevant to whether the statute is violated.
- Serious educational discussion of sex, even if explicit, is not automatically unlawful; the statute targets material whose tendency is to excite lustful thoughts rather than to instruct.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Dennett’s obscenity conviction because the pamphlet’s overall instructional purpose, tone, and distribution context showed it was a bona fide educational work, not the type of sexually provocative material prohibited by the federal postal obscenity statute.


United States v. Dennett, 39 F.2d 564 (2d Cir. 1930)