The Comstock Act

[George Forman]

Looks like people need to start writing their congressmen (ok, I don't know a gender neutral way to say congressman, as congresperson doesn't look right and sets off the spell checker...)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/22/opinions/abortion-threat-comstock-act-must-be-repealed-cohen-donley-rebouche/index.html

[Santayana]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 21:51:26 -0800 (PST), George Forman <grend...@gmail.com>
said:

Sounds like a great idea! The Comstock Act should have been repealed entirely
over 50 years ago, as it was beyond outdated even then.

Santayana

[Kairu Hakubi]

So you... WANT people to kill their babies? I don't get it, you're alive, so you must believe in being alive. Killing yourself is easy. Why do you want to kill other people before they've had a chance to make that choice themselves exactly? And what in God's name does that have to do with asstr?

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:12:22 -0800 (PST), Kairu Hakubi
<sixsided...@gmail.com> wrote:

What it has to do with ASSTR is that the Comstock Act is used against
porn at least as much as it is against distributing information about
contraception and abortion. In fact much of its argument against
contraception and abortion information is by claiming that it's porn.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[Santayana]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:12:22 -0800 (PST), Kairu Hakubi <sixsided...@gmail.com>

said:

I'm not in favour of killing anyone. I vehemently oppose the death penalty,
which thankfully was abolished forever in this country.

I'm rabidly pro-choice -- I believe it is up to the /woman/ to decide whether
she gets pregnant, and if she does, /she/ gets to determine whether or not
she carries it to term -- NOT you, NOT me, NOT some politician, NOT some
crazed religious whack-job.

> And what in God's name does that have to do with asstr?

Where the hell have you been for the last 15-20 years? Hiding under a rock,
or something? How can you be so utterly clueless as to what has been going
on in your own country for the last two decades or so?

Karen "Red Rose" Fletcher was indicted in 2005-2006; Frank was raided in
2008, put on trial in 2010, and found guilty in 2013. Thomas Alan Arthur
(MrDouble) was raided in 2019, put on trial and convicted in 2021. For his
part, Ron Kuhlmeyer was tried last year (2023) plead guilty, and sentenced
to 33 years, 9 months in prison.

*ALL* of these people were convicted under 18 USC §1462 -- one of the so-
called "Comstock Laws". Frank died still a prisoner, just under 4 years ago,
and Arthur and Kuhlmeyer will eventually follow suit, given their ages and
the lengths of the sentences imposed.

Read the legislation, and the article being referenced:

CNN - The most significant national threat to reproductive rights
is not a looming Supreme Court judgment or a bill being considered
by Congress. It’s already here, in the form of an extant but long
dormant law from 1873 that could ban abortion nationwide: the
Comstock Act. The act is named after Anthony Comstock, an anti-vice
crusader from the late 1800s who used his power as a special agent
of the US Postal Service to enforce his beliefs about sex and
propriety. HE [COMSTOCK] WAS ABLE TO PERSUADE CONGRESS TO PASS
LAWS AGAINST “INDECENT OR IMMORAL” MATERIALS, INCLUDING BROAD
DEFINITIONS OF CONTRACEPTION, PORNOGRAPHY AND ABORTION.
[Emphasis added]

It is these broadly-defined laws against "indecent or immoral" materials,
i.e. 18 USC §1462 that have been used to prosecute and convict Karen "Red
Rose" Fletcher as well as jail Frank McCoy, Thomas Arthur and Ron Kuhlmeyer.

Some antiabortion advocates are interpreting this law, which
remained on the books during the half century that Roe v. Wade was
in force, to ban mailing anything that induces an abortion. Because
virtually everything used for an abortion — from abortion pills, to
the instruments for abortion procedures, to clinic supplies — gets
mailed to providers in some form, this interpretation of the
Comstock Act could mean a nationwide ban on all abortions, even in
states where it remains legal.

The Comstock Act must be repealed, and in our view, that process
needs to begin this year. As tempting as it is to ignore this law,
allowing it to remain on the books is too dangerous, and the stakes
are too high.

He's absolutely right. Up until this point, the law was primarily used
against "obscene materials" -- since the demise of /Roe/ it may once again
be used to help restrict access to abortions.

These laws were used to criminalize the /transfer/ of /information/ from one
person to another -- that information being:

A) Where to obtain abortions, or information as to how to induce one; and

B) Where to obtain "obscene" material.

You apparently seem to think that the law is perfectly fine when the object
is to suppress information in category A, but not so much when it comes to
suppressing information with respect to category B.

I happen to think that the law should be repealed in its' entirety, so that
information in both classes (A & B) will no longer be proscribed.


Now, let's take a closer look at 18 USC §1462, shall we?

§1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters

Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other
common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section
230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in
interstate or foreign commerce—

(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture,
motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of
indecent character; or

(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording,
electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of
producing sound; or

(c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or
intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or
any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet,
advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or
indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such
mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or

Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other
common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section
230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the
carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense
thereafter.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 768; May 27, 1950, ch. 214, §1, 64
Stat. 194; Pub. L. 85–796, §2, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 962; Pub. L.
91–662, §4, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§330016(1)(K), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–104,
title V, §507(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap71.htm

Paragraph (a) criminalizes 'obscene' materials, while paragraph (c) even goes
so far as to criminalize the publication or transmission of /links/ to where
such materials may be found -- the relevant wording is this:

... or notice of any kind giving information, directly or
indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any
of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be
obtained or made;

/This/ is what they used to put Frank McCoy -- a resident of Minnesota -- on
trial in the Middle District of Georgia, for emailing links to an undercover
officer in that District outlining where his stories could be found.

What I found interesting was that the Georgian authorities initially tried
having Frank indicted in the Minnesota courts -- they were rebuffed by the
judges there, who were apparently concerned about First Amendment issues.

It was at this point, that they hit upon the strategy of having Frank break
the law by transmitting a link to where his stories could be obtained to an
undercover officer in Georgia. Failing that, the Georgian authorities would
have had NO jurisdiction.

One of the (now proven-valid) criticisms of Miller when it was first decided
in 1973, was that because the standards were based on state law, as opposed
to a national standard, that this would have the effect of dragging everyone
down to the lowest common denominator (in Frank's case, Georgia; in Arthur's
case, Texas).

Until the Comstock Laws are repealed, the government is entirely free to
target anyone they choose, and do to them what was done to Frank. This is
doubly-so, given the fact that both the McCoy and Arthur decisions were
upheld by the respective Courts of Appeals for their Districts, and the US
Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in both cases.