Opinion ID: 108136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Section 4009 was a response to public and congressional concern with use of mail facilities to distribute unsolicited advertisements that recipients found to be offensive because of their lewd and salacious character. Such mail was found to be pressed upon minors as well as adults who did not seek and did not want it. Use of mailing lists of youth organizations was part of the mode of doing business. At the congressional hearings it developed that complaints to the Postmaster General had increased from 50,000 to 250,000 annually. The legislative history, including testimony of child psychology specialists and psychiatrists before the House Committee on the Post Office and the Civil Service, reflected concern over the impact of the materials on the development of children. A declared objective of Congress was to protect minors and the privacy of homes from such material and to place the judgment of what constitutes an offensive invasion of those interests in the hands of the addressee. To accomplish these objectives Congress provided in subsection (a) that the mailer is subject to an order to refrain from further mailings of such materials to designated addressees. Subsection (b) states that the Postmaster General shall direct the sender to refrain from further mailings to the named addressees. Subsection (c) in describing the Postmaster's order states that it shall expressly prohibit the sender . . . from making any further mailings to the designated addressees. . . . Subsection (c) also requires the sender to delete the addressee's name from all mailing lists and prohibits the sale, transfer, and exchange of lists bearing the addressee's name. There are three plausible constructions of the statute, with respect to the scope of the prohibitory order. The order could prohibit all future mailings to the addressees, all future mailings of advertising material to the addressees, or all future mailings of similar materials. The seeming internal statutory inconsistency is undoubtedly a residue of the language of the section as it was initially proposed. The section as originally reported by the House Committee prohibited further mailings of such pandering advertisements, § 4009 (a), further mailings of such matter, § 4009 (b), and any further mailings of pandering advertisements, § 4009 (c). H. R. Rep. No. 722, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 125 (1967). The section required the Postmaster General to make a determination whether the particular piece of mail came within the proscribed class of pandering advertisements, as that term is used in the Ginzburg case. Id., at 69. The section was subsequently amended by the House of Representatives to eliminate from the Post Office any censorship function. Congressman Waldie, who proposed the amendment, envisioned a minimal role for the Post Office. The amendment was intended to remove the right of the Government to involve itself in any determination of the content and nature of these objectionable materials . . . . 113 Cong. Rec. 28660 (1967). The only determination left for the Postmaster General is whether or not the mailer has removed the addressee's name from the mailing list. Statements by the proponents of the legislation in both the House and Senate manifested an intent to prohibit all further mailings from the sender. In describing the effect of his proposed amendment Congressman Waldie stated: So I have said in my amendment that if you receive literature in your household that you consider objectionable. . . you can inform the Postmaster General to have your name stricken from that mailer's mailing list. 113 Cong. Rec. 28660. The Senate Committee Report on the bill contained similar language: If a person receives an advertisement which . . . he . . . believes to be erotically arousing . . . he may notify the Postmaster General of his determination. The Postmaster General is then required to issue an order to the sender directing him to refrain from sending any further mailings of any kind to such person. S. Rep. No. 801, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 38. Senator Monroney, a major proponent of the legislation in the Senate, described the bill as follows: With respect to the test contained in the bill, if the addressee declared it to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative, the Postmaster General would have to notify the sender to send no more mail to that address . . . . 113 Cong. Rec. 34231 (1967). [3] The legislative history of subsection (a) thus supports an interpretation that prohibits all future mailings independent of any objective test. This reading is consistent with the provisions of related subsections in the section. Subsection (c) provides that the Postmaster General shall also direct the sender and his agents or assigns to delete immediately the names of the designated addressees from all mailing lists owned or controlled by the sender or his agents or assigns and, further, shall prohibit the sender and his agents or assigns from the sale, rental, exchange, or other transaction involving mailing lists bearing the names of the designated addressees. 39 U. S. C. § 4009 (c) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). It would be anomalous to read the statute to affect only similar material or advertisements and yet require the Postmaster General to order the sender to remove the addressee's name from all mailing lists in his actual or constructive possession. The section was intended to allow the addressee complete and unfettered discretion in electing whether or not he desired to receive further material from a particular sender. See n. 6, infra. The impact of this aspect of the statute is on the mailer, not the mail. The interpretation of the statute that most completely effectuates that intent is one that prohibits any further mailings. Limiting the prohibitory order to similar materials or advertisements is open to at least two criticisms: (a) it would expose the householder to further burdens of scrutinizing the mail for objectionable material and possible harassment, and (b) it would interpose the Postmaster General between the sender and the addressee and, at the least, create the appearance if not the substance of governmental censorship. [4] It is difficult to see how the Postmaster General could decide whether the materials were similar or possessing touting or pandering characteristics without an evaluation suspiciously like censorship. Additionally, such an interpretation would be incompatible with the unequivocal language in subsection (c).