Talk:Comstock Act of 1873

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Comstock laws)

Where was Anthony Comstock's neighborhood really?[edit]

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)[reply]

U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision to Remove Large Block and Translate to Layperson[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]