Talk:Comstock Act of 1873

Where was Anthony Comstock's neighborhood really?

This page claims (unsourced):

"Anthony Comstock stated that he was determined to act the part of a good citizen, meaning that he had every intention of upholding the law. He started off by beginning a campaign against the saloons in his Brooklyn, New York neighborhood."

His bio page states (sourced) "Comstock lived in Summit, New Jersey from 1880 to 1915.[5] He built a house there in 1892 at 35 Beekman Road, where he died in 1915.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock#Biography

Might Comstock's jurisdiction as a United States Postal Inspector have been in Brooklyn? If he was USPI of a Brooklyn "neighborhood," one might expect that neighborhood to be named.

Dadofsam (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

I am going to start editing to add a section on how the Comstock Law is being raised in the context of the US Supreme Court case U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. which will likely be decided in June 2024.

In reviewing this page I am struck by the huge block quotes containing text of the law. This is not how I understand most wikipedia pages are structured. I think the overall page needs major editing and could use a more experienced wikipedia editor to help. Please let me know if you are interested.

Weitzt (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

After seeing your note and also the cover page warning about the page, I have started editing this page so it is accessible to non-specialists. So far, I revised the lead, added the box with essential information, added the "Historical Background" section, and started writing that section. There is a LOT to be done to remove all the block quotes but I am working on this in a sandbox and will continue to update as I finish sections. As per your comment, the lead mentions how this is currently before SCOTUS and it would be GREAT to then have your section. I will be going through the entire page to deal with the block quotes and substituting more substantive information. I am using the Title IX (highly rated and beautifully organized) as a model for accessibility and affect on society, politics, economics, and law. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision to Remove Large Block and Translate to Layperson

Based on the Wikipedia evaluation of this page (too much block quote, too much language that is not accessible), I am revising it. I have created a new lead and info-box (with the model of Title IX as a highly rated example). I have just updated the "text" section (replacing paragraphs of block text with an explanation of the parts and examples). Perhaps this is still too much but I do think the three elements are interesting. Weitzt is working on a section connecting Comstock to the recent SCOTUS case, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. Because this should be decided in JUNE or JULY, I'd like to get this page accessible to readers ASAP. I'll work on everything besides what Weitzt has started. Please help as your expertise allows! Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The "objectives" section has been updated but still needs work. The references are not robust or contemporary. There is NO information about period pills on Wikipedia (that I can find) and I would need to do a scholarly search. The Victorian context is not here, etc. Will continue to work on this. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed two HUGE blocks of text copied from Mary Dennett's 1926 book because this is not relevant to the Comstock Acts and Mary Dennett has an A-rated page dedicated to her work on birth control. I've preserved the two large blocks here: User:Shaftesbury'sPipe/Comstock Laws I will read through them and (if justified) put the information in a relevant page. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Revisions to reorder information, make accessible to layperson, clarify connections to other historical events

I have reordered (and retitled some of the)sections to make this article more accessible and clearer. As it stands this article is NOT addressing the Comstock Laws in a general way. Also, sources are VERY old. I am checking all of the sources and attempting to provide more recent ones (e.g., the article relies on 2-3 very old articles or books). Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, this article is important to other articles on women's history and needs to be expanded and revised so it is not focused on Anthony Comstock and pornography. The Comstock Laws affected LGBTQIA+ people as well. I don't have as much expertise but am working on material that will make it clearer that limiting this information affected particular groups of people. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see the issue with the lack of generality. When people and the news media reference the ‘Comstock Act’, they are often not referring to state statutes of the likes overturned in Griswold v. Connecticut, or societal attitudes towards women broadly, instead the focus is on the federal law. For this reason, the focus should be on the federal law and allowing the article to go off on these historical ‘sidequests’ about other laws would distract from what this law actually says, what it means, how its been interpreted, and how its recently been enforced.

This isn’t merely a hypothetical, there have already been some opinion pieces (such as this and this) published in major news outlets as of late that, for whatever reason, human error or intentional framing by a spin doctor, I don’t really care, make broad statements about this law mainly because there is a lack of defined focus.

To give an example, in the Ziegler one, the author states the following: “Then with Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court made enforcing it [the Comstock Act] unconstitutional.” With some concessions, and appropriate context, this claim would be true. The article makes no such concessions and hence this exclamation is false in the broad light in which it is cast. Just the year before Dobbs, there would in fact be a conviction secured under the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1462 in particular). Therefore, adopting a narrow focus would be more useful, at least in my opinion, at helping lay audiences understanding the Comstock Act. Even though I must admit, nitpicking state-level anti-vice laws would be rather fun.

Thoughts? Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. You clearly care a lot about the topic and are doing work to include more detail. However, it is important on Wikipedia to follow the etiquette. You have deleted talk page archives -- that is not done. Even if things have been "answered," it is important to leave that record as a gesture of good faith. Would you mind reversing your edits there?

It is also not appropriate to eliminate something like Griswold from the important SCOTUS opinions. As noted, this page is on a contentious issue. In this divided world, let's add to the information rather than erase information!

Please add information but do not delete the work of others. Please do not erase talk page archives.

Thank you. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Griswold rightfully isn’t in the SCOTUS opinions since Griswold did not directly implicate the Federal-level law and it is already discussed in the article itself to a fair degree. Griswold was a State case (appealed to SCOTUS) about a State law. The court did not adjudicate the provisions of the Comstock Act of 1873 in that case, they adjudicated on a State law. Related jurisprudence is discussed (e.g., Griswold, Yates, Bigelow, etc.) but merely being related to the Act or an intertwined issue does not make a case about the Act. Talk archives were created but must’ve not linked (see Comstock Act Talk Archive). I don't really know what happened, but probably some screw-up. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there.

In May, this article consisted of many long block quotes. It had a label indicating that this needed fixing. Also, the article did not help THE AVERAGE PERSON understand what the Comstock Act is and why it is currently important.

In May, I started the process of making the article more accessible to non-specialists and eliminating large block quotes (that did not fit with Wikipedia rules). I carefully documented changes on the talk page and left explanations of edits. I also wrote to @Weitzt who had previously indicated they were working on some SCOTUS material. I did not want to work on material they had on the go.

We now have a situation in which @Irruptive Creditor has deleted talk page archives and wholesale reverted edits. This article is labeled a contentious topic and it is important for all of us to cooperate!

In the spirit of making this article informative and clear, let’s work together. Please no making wholesale reverting edits or marking edits as “minor” when they are substantive.

Because this article is labeled contentious, let’s take care with adjectives and adverbs (that might be misunderstood as ideological).

My plan is to:

(1) revise the lead because it is essential for students (HS, college) and all people to be able to read and understand. The more detailed section on the content of the law that [name of them] created will give people who want it more detail.

(2) create an additional section that shows how the Comstock Act is being mentioned (e.g., Justice Samuel Alito in oral arguments this term. This will allow people who see Comstock in the newspaper to understand how it is being used just this year in debates about mifepristone and medication abortion. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

First, you must’ve not read anything I wrote or did read it and just didn’t see it, but talk archives are (here). If you know how, I’d appreciate it if you could link them over here for me.

Secondly, this ‘wholesale reversion of edits’ stuff is untrue. Your most recent edits were inaccurate to a degree and I explained why in each revert:

1. You stated the Comstock Act is codified at chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code , sections 1460 through 1470. This is false. Only three sections are codified there, the rest of that chapter is the PROTECT Act and the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act.
2. You added in information to the lead purporting that the law criminalizes sex toys and contraceptives. It doesn’t now, so this false. In addition, all that you re-added to the lead was never wholesale removed, but instead merely relocated to Historical Background.
3. You listed Griswold v. Connecticut as a SCOTUS opinion about the Act. This is false. As I explained, Griswold was about a State law, not the federal law and therefore not about the Act. In addition, Griswold is discussed in the article.

Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to working with you and other editors to improve this article, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello again.

You are an experienced editor. I am sure you can restore the talk archive. Please do that.

Please stop changing the lead. It is very confusing and potentially misleading for people reading the article. It is true that the act affects "conveying obscene or crime-inciting matter" but it is important to specify the content of that crime. As you note in the long text section you created, abortion is mentioned over and over in the text of the Comstock Act. Federal court judges are explicitly arguing that Comstock applies to mifepristone, used in abortions and miscarriages. So, it is a problem to remove that content. I am putting that back in and I would ask you to respect that -- since your own "text" section says as much.

As you can see, I did NOT add Griswold back. I considered your distinction. I am asking for the same sort of consideration here. Take a day before changing what others add to the article. Deliberation requires that of all of us. Wikipedia is better with deliberation. No one person can decide.

Thank you. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

reinstate pre-existing article

I think we should be reinstating the pre-existing article. For approximately 50 years, starting around 1970 the Comstock laws (i.e. "Comstock Act of 1873" and the numerous related state laws) have been known as defunct law. Across generations, this has been perceived as ancient law that became inapplicable during the second half of the 20th century.

I am skeptical about edits that have happened so far, making claims that the articl included information about laws unrelated to the Comstock Act, which I presume are in fact "part and parcel" of the Comstock laws.

As I understand it, the state laws that were part of the Comstock law implementation have all faded away, so we could have something along the lines of "Revival of the Comstock Act", obviously with a summary at the top explaining what the two distinct articles cover. Fabrickator (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If this version (the one you referenced on your user subpage) is what you want to reinstate, since you don’t actually define what you mean by ‘pre-existing article’ (so I have to assume that version is what you mean), then yeah no, I don't think that should be reinstated. That version is unreadable to an average audience (filled with needless block-quotes, etc.), contains numerous falsehoods, and has what could be, if published, an entire novel's worth of off-topic quotes and other extraneous content about Mary Ware Dennett. I will list but just a few specifics from that version in order to illustrate why I believe your suggestion is unwise:

1. Already in the second sentence of your suggested version, I have encountered a factual error: "The "parent" act (Sect. 211) was passed on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.".The parent law was not contained in section 211, it was section 148 of an Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the Statutes relating to the Post-office Department. Section 211 (of the Criminal Code Act of 1909) was an amendment added at a later date. So not only does this version cite the wrong section number, it also cites the wrong law.
2. In addition to that, there are more factual errors in your preferred version, to list yet another': "The Comstock laws are now codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 71, §§ 1460–1470". This completely untrue, only three of the sections in that chapter are from the Comstock Act. The notes posted in the U.S. Code clearly indicate that the rest of the chapter is from either the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act or the PROTECT ACT of 2003.
3. To move on from inaccuracies of your suggested version (of which there are many), your suggested version has an entire 10+ paragraph off-topic block quote from Mary Ware Dennett's book.
4. As though the Mary Ware Dennett block quotes weren't bad enough, the are sooooo many more block quotes.

Beyond the issues with the version you wish to re-instate, I find that the very warrant upon which you base your claim is itself untrue. The Comstock Act did not, as you state "starting around 1970 the Comstock laws (i.e. "Comstock Act of 1873" and the numerous related state laws) have [become] known as defunct law." Your claim here can be easily shown as false through the wealth of case law after 1970, such as this one, that one, that other one, yet another one, the other one from the same year as yet another one, and one more just for good measure. Additionally, the law was amended multiple times after 1970, with amendments being made in 1988, 1994, and 1996. There has even been a prosecution under the Act as recently as 2021. Put simply, laws enacted by Congress remain, unless repealed, just as effective as the day they were written. For instance, the 27th amendment was sent for ratification by States in 1789 and yet it was still able to be ratified over 200 years later. The Comstock Act of 1873 is no different in how effective it remains.

If you have any verifiable information to dispute what I have written above, or wish to provide any other clarification to support why the previously existing version with factual errors, block-quotes, and off-topic gunk should be reinstated over the current version with far less of that, then I would appreciate reading it. Until then, I cannot in good conscious support your suggestion (which would undo much of the work Shaftesbury'sPipe, Weitzt, and I have done).

Good day and pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for this suggestion @Fabrickator. Based on what you wrote, I created a section today and I tried to stick to what is very recent and have links to all documentation. I agree with @Irruptive Creditor that what was originally there was not helpful because there were so many block quotes from the legislation or the one book by an early feminist, Mary Ware Dennett. I would not call her work "fluff" (as @Irruptive Creditor did in one editing note) but it doesn't help anyone to have the dump of her book.

But I think what @Irruptive Creditorhas created is also not helpful. Sections are too long. It is also important to cooperate and not erase. I started another topic below (suggesting a way to organize the article going forward). Let me know what you think of the proposed sections. I would work on this. I would preserve what @Irruptive Creditorhas done but it needs to be below a main article that is clear and concise. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Parsing Comstock in context: historical, legal, and political -- how to revise as a group.

Hello All.

Back in May, this article had a tag indicating that there was too much block text. I made some revisions to reduce the large blocks. I used the article on Title IX because I thought it would capture that the law had a history AND it was also still being debated. @Irruptive Creditor then made substantive revisions and reorganized the article. @Fabrickator has raised issues about what should happen going forward.

I believe that we now need editors to help make this article better. Comstock is several things at once. It is an important historical act wrapped up in Victorian morality, etc. It is also a law that currently affects pornography. It is also part of the contemporary debate on abortion as federal justices are citing Comstock as they discuss abortion pills such as mifepristone that may be mailed.

I had trouble editing this page because Comstock WAS a law about X, Y, Z then it was amended to be about X,Y. Now it is being talked about as having power to regulate abortion.

This article should help a HS or college student who does not understand what Comstock is. I don't think we have that yet. The section on the text is too long. There is no historical context for why this was passed.

What do people think of the following organization: (1) LEAD (2) Short statement of the text (3) Short history section (that can link to Anthony Comstock page and other related reformers) (4) Short section on importance to pornography law today (5) Short section on how being mentioned regarding abortion

The very detailed material could then come after those basic sections. Right now, a high school student would not be able to easily get the information because the sections are so long. I think everyone here understands that this is a contentious topic. But I think we could -- together -- write something very effective that avoids political language, etc.

Thoughts? Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of "agenda" ... Somebody wants to get rid of "block text" because a remark had been made about how it was too difficult for a 10th grader to parse through. This misses the point ... actually, it would raise an interesting point for classroom discussion ... why was there a decision to try and spell all these out, something we wouldn't see in modern statutes. Was it because Comstock had no experience with trying to write statutes? Or to avoid challenges to a law which might otherwise be vague, actually making it unenforceable? Are our modern laws better or worse for failing to elaborate all the ways in which a law can be violated?

For those of us not in an academic setting, we can just be amused at this big block of text, but that only makes it difficult if you lack the "filtering" to realize you don't really need to read every word. And if somebody has a problem with that, then there is the option of offering this article on Simple Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Fabrickator, since you’ve provided nothing to support any of your claims other than your own mere opinion (and begging the question) about an alleged ‘agenda’ to which you’ve presented no actual evidence or specifics to show of it, I've yet to see merit in anything you’ve written so far. For instance, who is this 'somebody' you speak of? While other editors might engage, I don't wish to waste my time further discussing with you if all you have provided is thus far empty assertions (and thinly-veiled conspiratorial personal attacks). Best wishes, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC).