Obscene & Objectionable Material

Christian Party

Postmaster General v. Hamilton. (CA DC.) Postmaster obtained injunction prohibiting Def.-film dealer from sending thru U. S. mails 14 films found "obscene and objectionable" and advertising re films. On appeal, Def. claimed P. O. was interfering with all his business mail. Sept. 1958: CA DC restrained Post Office Dep't. from carrying out its order permitting interception of Def's. mail other than that re 14 films, enjoined Def. from attempting to mail films or ads re films or trying to collect money for films thru mails.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/meiklejohn/meik-4_2/meik-4_2-3.html

"Playboy" v. Postmaster General, (CA DC.)*

22.2.

Hamilton v. Summerfield, et al. (formerly listed as Postmaster General v. Hamilton.) (CA DC, #14,452.) For facts, see IV DOCKET 2. Dec. 9, 1958: CA refused to moot case; remanded to DC for disposition on merits with instructions to enjoin Post Office from withholding mail from Def. unless matters first subject of administrative proceeding in Post Office and held a violation.

John Silard, Esq., 1631 K St., NW, Washington, D. C.

Modified Monday, July 13, 2009