◆ SpookStack

where its use could be controlled.“ 128 F. Supp. 280, 282 (D. ua. 1955).°° The cases upholding importation of contraceptives and books dealing with contraception when sought to be brought 23. «= 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 ie true that these cases held, on analogy to 22 see also Burstein v. United States, 178 F.2d 665 “(9th Gir, 1949) of. xliaw v. Schelfer, I51¥. Supp. 534, 539 n . 6 23 gnited States v._One Pac , 86 ¥.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936); Bnited States v. as, 0 (2a Cir. 1938); Davis v. Wilted Btates, G2 V.20 173 btn care 1933); Consumers Union oF e ates, Inc. v. Walker 148 FP. 26 33 (D.C. Cir. gaa); gee ae RS Rubber Corp. v. I. Lee & Co., 45 P.20 103, 108 (24 ; of. Bours v. (7th care +7915), ; * 8 awe are satisfied that this statute [19 0.8.C. $1305(a) 3952] ... embraced only such articles as Congress would have de- nounced as immoral if it had understood all the conditions upeer whieh they were to be used." United States A on Package, ‘¥.24 737, 739 (ed Cir. 1938). kage, 86 Court stated: “We perceive no significan ant difference between the meaning of obscenity developed in the case law and the defi- nition of the A.L.I., Model Penal Code, §207.10(2) (Tent. Draft - Ho. 6 , 1957), veoe” Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 487, a. 20 (1957). section 207.10 8)(c) of the Draft provides that non-sriminal dissemination of obscenity includes: ssenination to Snstitutions or individuals having scientific or other special 3 Justification for possessing such material.“ E