◆ SpookStack

where its use could be controlled.“ 128 F. Supp. 280, 282 (D. ma, 1955).?? . The cases upholding importation of contraceptives and books dealing with contraception when sought to be brought : into the country for purposes of scientific and medical research”? are further indications that the statute is to be interpreted as excluding or permitting material depending on the conditions of its use.” It 49 true that these cases held, on analogy to ge also Burstein v. United states, 178 F.2d 665 (9th e . 1989). cr. Kiaw v. Sohalter, 151 ¥. Supp. 534, 539 n. 6 -(8.D.0LY. 1957), appeal pending. : 83 United States v. One Pac! , 86 P.24 737 (2a Cir. 1936); Bnited States v. Nicholas, F. 0 (2a Cir. 1938); Davis v. Patted tates, 02 ¥.20 073 h Cir. 1933); Consumers Union of ates, Inc Walker, 145 FP. 24 33 (D.C. Cir. Iga) F . Cir. Fi wv. C. I. Lee & Co., 45 F.2d 103, tates, 229 Fed. 960 rJ 108 (24 Cir. F (7th Cir. 1915).- ; @) «lve are satisfied that this statute [19 0.8.C. §1305(a) 1952] ... embraced only such articles as Congress would have de- - pounced as immoral if it had understood #11 the conditions under which they were to be used." ted States v. One Package ‘7.24 737, 739 (ea Cir. 1936). Case, jupreme Court stated: “We perceive no significant difference between the meaning of obscenity Geveloped in the case law and the defi- nition of the A.L.I., Model Penal Code, §207.10(2) (Tent. Draft ) .eee" Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 487, 7). Section 207.10(8)(c) of the Draft vides that non-eriminal dissemination of obscenity includes: ssemination to Snstitutions or individuals having scientific or other special justification for possessing such material."