Ginsberg v. New York
Headline: Court upholds New York law banning sale of sexually explicit 'girlie' magazines to under-17s, allowing states to restrict materials to minors even if permissible for adults, affecting sellers and parental control.
Holding: The Court upheld a New York law that bans selling material deemed 'harmful to minors' to people under 17, ruling states may treat obscenity differently for minors than for adults and affirming the conviction.
- Allows states to ban sale of certain sexual materials to under-17s.
- Retailers can be criminally liable for selling such material to minors.
- Recognizes parental and state roles in limiting minors' access to sexual material.
Summary
Background
A luncheonette owner and his wife sold so‑called "girlie" magazines to a 16‑year‑old and were prosecuted under a New York law that makes it a crime to sell material "harmful to minors" under 17. The trial judge found the pictures showed nudity and were harmful to minors; the seller was convicted and the conviction reached this Court on a facial challenge to the law.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether a State may treat obscenity differently for minors than for adults and bar sales to those under 17. The majority said yes: the law defines "harmful to minors" with a three‑part test and the State may rationally protect children and support parents in supervising reading. The Court also held the law’s notice and "knowingly" requirements are adequate and affirmed the conviction.
Real world impact
The ruling means sellers can be criminally liable for sales to under‑17s of material that the law finds harmful to minors, even when the material is lawful for adults. The decision leaves open many application questions (for example, evidence and proof issues) because the Court resolved a facial challenge and did not decide every as‑applied detail.
Dissents or concurrances
A concurring Justice agreed the law can be applied to children who lack full choice. Dissenting Justices warned the decision risks broad state censorship, argued the Court should have examined the magazines themselves, and worried about First Amendment protections for distributors.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?