Document: 397 U.S. 728 90 S.Ct. 1484 25 L.Ed.2d 736 Daniel ROWAN, dba American Book Service, et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT al. No. 399. Argued Jan. 22, 1970. Decided May 4, Joseph Taback, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellants. William D. Ruckelshaus, Washington, D.C., appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellants challenge constitutionality Title III Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act 1967, 81 Stat. 645, 39 U.S.C. § 4009 (1964 ed., Supp. IV), under which a person may require that mailer remove his name from its mailing lists stop all future mailings to householder. The appellants are publishers, distributors, owners, operators mail order houses, list brokers, owners service organizations whose business activities affected by challenged statute. 2 A brief description statutory framework will facilitate our analysis questions raised in this appeal. Section is entitled 'Prohibition pandering advertisements mails.' It provides procedure whereby any householder insulate himself offer sale 'matter addressee sole discretion believes be erotically arousing or sexually provocative.' 4009(a) IV).1 3 Subsection (b) mandates Postmaster General, upon receipt notice specifying he has received found him within category, issue on addressee's request an directing sender agents assigns refrain further named addressee. Additionally, subsection (c) requires General delete designated owned controlled prohibits sale, rental, exchange, other transactions involving bearing 4 If reason believe issued section been violated, (d) authorizes notify registered certified belief reasons therefor, grant opportunity respond have hearing whether violation occurred. 5 thereafter determines being authorized Attorney seek United States District Court compliance with prohibitory order. (e) grants district court jurisdiction application General. 6 initiated action Central California complaint petition declaratory relief ground IV) unconstitutional. They alleged they had numerous orders pursuant provisions contended violates their rights free speech due process guaranteed First Fifth Amendments Constitution. argued unconstitutionally vague, without standards, ambiguous. 7 three-judge was convened 28 2284 it determined constitutional when interpreted prohibit similar those initially mailed addressee.2 300 F.Supp. 1036. 8 construed subsections 'advertisements similar' Future mailings, view Court, 'are measured objectionable material such first mailing.' F.Supp., at 1041. In Congress did not intend so restrictive scope provisions. I. Background Congressional Objectives 9 response public congressional concern use facilities distribute unsolicited recipients offensive because lewd salacious character. Such pressed minors as well adults who want it. Use youth part mode doing business. At hearings developed complaints increased 50,000 250,000 annually. legislative history, including testimony child psychology specialists psychiatrists before House Committee Post Office Civil reflected over impact materials development children. declared objective protect privacy homes place judgment what constitutes invasion interests hands 10 To accomplish these objectives provided (a) subject 'to addressees.' states shall direct 'further describing Postmaster's 'expressly * making addressees, *' also 'from lists' transfer, exchange name. 11 There three plausible constructions statute, respect could advertising materials. 12 seeming internal inconsistency undoubtedly residue language proposed. originally reported prohibited advertisements.' 4009(a), matter,' 4009(b), 'any advertisements,' 4009(c). H.R.Rep. 722, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 125 (1967). required make determination particular piece came proscribed class advertisements, 'as term used Ginzburg case (Ginzburg v. States, 383 463, 86 942, 16 31).' Id., 69. 13 subsequently amended Representatives eliminate censorship function. Congressman Waldie, proposed amendment, envisioned minimal role Office. amendment intended 'the right Government involve itself content nature *.' 113 Cong.Rec. 28660 only left removed list. Statements proponents legislation both Senate manifested intent sender. effect Waldie stated: 14 'So I said my if you receive literature your household consider can inform stricken mailer's list.' 28660. 15 Report bill contained language: 'If receives advertisement determination. then sending kind person.' S.Rep. 801, 38; U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2295. 17 Senator Monroney, major proponent Senate, described follows: 18 'With test bill, provocative, would send no more address 34231 (1967).3 19 history thus supports interpretation independent test. This reading consistent related section. 'shall immediately names addressees and, further, transaction 4009(c) IV). 20 anomalous read statute affect yet actual constructive possession. allow complete unfettered electing desired See n. 6, infra. aspect mailer, mail. most completely effectuates one mailings. Limiting open least two criticisms: expose burdens scrutinizing possible harassment, interpose between least, create appearance substance governmental censorship.4 difficult see how decide were 'similar' possessing touting characteristics evaluation suspiciously like censorship. incompatible unequivocal (c). II. Amendment Contentions 21 essence appellants' argument communicate. One sentence perhaps characterizes entire position: 22 'The freedom communicate orally written word indeed, every manner whatsoever imperative sane society.' Brief 15. 23 Without doubt postal system indispensable adjunct civilized society communication healthy social But let alone' must placed scales others 24 today's complex we inescapably captive audiences many purposes, but sufficient measure individual autonomy survive permit exercise control unwanted exclusive final judge cross threshold impeding flow ideas, information, arguments that, ideally, should consider. Today's merchandising methods, plethora mass subsidized low rates, growth large industry changed mailman carrier primarily private communications, leisurely day, made sends often into home. places strain doctrine judicial observe pieces pounds, Everyman's today up overwhelmingly persons does know. And too matter finds offensive. Martin City Struthers, 319 141, 63 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943), Black, while supporting '(f)reedom information citizen,' id., 146, S.Ct., 865, acknowledged limitation terms leaving 'with homeowner himself' power 'whether distributors lawfully call home.' 148, 866. Weighing highly important communicate, trying determine where fits imperatives, against very basic sights, sounds, tangible do want, seems us mailbox unreceptive 26 traditionally respected bar, notice, solicitors, hawkers, peddlers property. supra; cf. Hall Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 49 S.E.2d 369, appeal dismissed, 335 875, 69 240, 93 418 (1948). circumscribed affirmative act giving wishes mailer. 27 hold less tend license form trespass hardly sense than say radio television viewer twist dial cut off boring bar entering Nothing Constitution compels listen communication, whatever merit; basis according printed pictures different preferred status sent ancient concept 'a man's home castle' 'not even king enter' lost none vitality, recognized exceptions includes offensively another. Camara Municipal 387 523, 1727, 930 Both absoluteness citizen's finality essential; provocative operative unlimited; dry goods catalog objects contents—or indeed text merchandise. sweeping avoid might arise vesting discretionary official. 29 effect, erected wall—or accurately permits citizen erect wall—that advertiser penetrate acquiescence. continuing ban once imposed presents obstacles; cannot put burden determining repeated occasions offending altered acceptable. Nor risk come children stopped. 30 We therefore categorically reject vendor otherwise prohibition operates impede valid answer press 'good' ideas unwilling recipient. That 'captives' outside sanctuary sound mean captives everywhere. Public Utilities Comm. Columbia Pollak, 343 451, 72 813, 96 1068 (1952). asserted repeat, stops outer boundary person's domain. 31 scheme accords 'opportunity heard proceedings adequate safeguard protection invoked.' Anderson Nat. Bank Luckett, 321 233, 246, 64 599, 88 692 (1944). comports Due Process Clause Amendment. accomplishes providing complaining Only serve sender, allowed days respond. secure administrative hearing.5 question initial subsequent order;6 second entered. 32 preceded full issuance Since risks immediate sanction failing comply order—it predicate later steps—it denies process. available defenses, proof sent, presented competent tribunal contempt finding made. Nickey Mississippi, 292 393, 396, 54 743, 744, 78 1323 (1934). 33 contend requirement mailign possession taking law. using, selling, exchanging lists; simply cease persons. 34 next confiscatory costs attending removal prohibitive. agree conclusion 'burden amount Particularly context presently applied commercial enterprises.' State Auto Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau Maloney, 341 105, 71 601, 95 788 (1951). 35 merit allegations vague. fatally vague exposes potential actor some detriment fair warning conduct. Cardiff, 344 174, 176, 73 189, 190, 97 200 Here know precisely complainants' sender's addressees. exposed continues after proceedings. run substantial miscalculation. 36 For stated, appealed affirmed. 37 ordered. 38 Judgment BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS joins, concurring. 40 join Court's add few words. insofar As notes, however, (g) allows include minor attained nineteenth birthday, reside addressee.' light broad 4009, ante, 1491, possibility exists parents coulds prevent children, years old, receiving political, religious, find view, difficulties. Cf. Tinker Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 503, 89 733, 731 (1969); Ginsberg New York, 390 629, 1274, 195 (1968). case, there particularized attack (g), nor, indication record 4009(g) late teens unwillingly deprived circumstances, understand leave older through interference specific constitutionally 19. birthday. Judge Hufstedler, concurring specially dissent, prior issuing de novo caused advertisements. Hruska spoke similarly: 'Title recipient obscene return 34232 vests duty violated ministerial adjudication An and/or 'astride Lamont 381 301, 306, 85 1493, 1496, 398 (1965). Although (h) specifically excludes pre-complaint Administrative Procedure Act, 554 seq. Department promulgated regulations setting forth procedures governing departmental hearings. CFR pt. 916. function included suggestions good faith, conduct material. entrust unreviewable 'erotically '(T)he second-guessed discretion.' (1967) (remarks Waldie).

Category: 2