Definition
Indecent publications are printed, pictorial, or other materials deemed offensive to prevailing standards of morality or decency, the distribution, sale, exhibition, or possession of which may be regulated or prohibited by law. Historically, the category encompassed books, pamphlets, photographs, prints, and similar items judged to corrupt public morals or offend community standards. In modern legal usage, the term has largely been displaced by the more precisely defined concept of obscenity, though "indecent" material remains a distinct regulatory category in certain contexts — particularly in broadcast media — where content may be restricted without meeting the full constitutional threshold for obscenity.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Indecent" means not conforming to accepted standards of morality or propriety; offensive or shocking, particularly in a sexual context.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Indecent" is defined as "offensive to modesty and delicacy; unfit to be seen or heard; immodest; obscene."
The gap between common and legal meaning is significant and has widened over time. In ordinary usage, "indecent" and "obscene" are near-synonyms. In law, they are not. Obscenity is a term of constitutional art with a formal three-part test; material that qualifies as legally obscene receives no First Amendment protection. "Indecent" material, by contrast, occupies a middle zone — it may be regulated in specific contexts (broadcast, communications to minors) but is not categorically outside constitutional protection. A researcher treating these terms as interchangeable will misread both historical statutes and modern doctrine.
---
Common Confusion
INDECENT PUBLICATIONS vs. OBSCENITY: These terms are frequently conflated in historical legal sources, popular writing, and even some older statutes. Before the Supreme Court developed a formal constitutional definition of obscenity in the twentieth century, legislatures and courts used "indecent," "obscene," "lewd," and "lascivious" interchangeably, often in the same charging instrument. Modern doctrine separates them: obscenity (as defined under the Miller standard) is categorically unprotected speech; indecent material is protected speech subject to limited, context-sensitive regulation. This distinction is largely invisible in pre-twentieth-century sources, including Bouvier's, and must be read into the historical record by the researcher rather than found there explicitly.
INDECENT PUBLICATIONS vs. HARMFUL TO MINORS: A further distinct category applies specifically to distribution of sexual material to minors. Material may be harmful to minors without being legally obscene as to adults, and without meeting any older definition of "indecent." Researchers working on child protection statutes should not assume that "indecent publications" doctrine controls.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a historical evolution term. Its meaning has shifted dramatically across three eras, and conflating them produces research error.
First era (pre-twentieth century): "Indecent publications" was the operative legal phrase in most Anglo-American obscenity regulation. Bouvier's reflects this usage — the term was broad, morally freighted, and largely undefined. Statutes used it as a catch-all. Researchers reading nineteenth-century statutes, indictments, or police reports will encounter this phrase as the primary charging term.
Second era (mid-twentieth century): Constitutional doctrine began to impose definition on what had been an amorphous category. The Hicklin test (imported from English law) asked whether material tended to deprave those most susceptible to its influence. American courts eventually rejected this standard in favor of community-based and purpose-based tests, culminating in a formal constitutional framework. During this transition, "indecent" and "obscene" appear in sources almost interchangeably, creating significant interpretive noise.
Third era (modern): "Indecent" has a residual but precise regulatory meaning in broadcast and telecommunications law, where the FCC has authority to regulate indecent (though not merely offensive) content during hours when children are likely to be in the audience. This usage is context-specific and does not map onto the historical statutory category.
Trap for researchers: A statute or decision from 1880 using "indecent publications" is not applying the same legal standard as a 1975 obscenity prosecution or a 2005 FCC enforcement action, even if the subject matter appears similar. Cross-era comparisons require explicit attention to which legal framework governed at the time.
Corpus connection: Researchers will also encounter "indecent publications" in postal and customs records. Federal statutes prohibiting the mailing of indecent matter have a long independent history, and the phrase "indecent" in that context tracks postal regulatory usage, not constitutional obscenity doctrine. Bouvier's cross-reference to MAIL flags this connection, and it is one of the more important navigational signals in the historical sources.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary entry is brief but structurally telling. It leads with the police power rationale — statutes forbidding keeping, exhibiting, or selling indecent books or pictures are within state police power and constitutional — and cites Cooley's Constitutional Limitations. This framing reflects the pre-constitutional-scrutiny era, in which the validity of such statutes was largely assumed rather than analytically tested. The entry cross-references OBSCENITY and MAIL without attempting to distinguish among them, which is consistent with nineteenth-century practice but is precisely what creates interpretive difficulty for modern researchers.
What Bouvier's does not address: the entry provides no definitional content for "indecent" itself, no discussion of what distinguishes indecent from merely offensive material, and no treatment of expressive or press freedom considerations. These omissions are not oversights — they reflect the state of doctrine at the time of publication. The constitutional analysis that would eventually produce a workable distinction between protected indecent speech and unprotected obscenity did not exist when Bouvier's was compiled. Researchers should not read backward into the entry a precision the source does not possess.
Cooley's citation is genuine and appropriate for its era. Thomas Cooley's Constitutional Limitations was the leading treatise on constitutional law in the late nineteenth century, and its validation of police power regulation of indecent publications was authoritative. That authority operated in a constitutional environment that predated modern First Amendment doctrine, and researchers relying on Cooley for current constitutional propositions will find the analysis has not survived intact.
---
Jurisdictional Note
State statutes regulating indecent publications varied considerably in scope and penalty throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Some states tracked federal postal definitions; others applied the English Hicklin standard; others relied on purely local moral consensus. Modern constitutional doctrine has imposed a floor of uniformity through First Amendment incorporation, but historical research into state-level prosecutions requires attention to the specific statutory text and judicial gloss operative in the relevant jurisdiction and period.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Speech in Public Forums, Limited Public Forums, and Nonpublic Forums (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia) — for the constitutional framework governing government regulation of expression, including the doctrinal space in which indecency regulation operates.
---