An American's mailbox is also part of his castle
They claimed the right to send you any junk they want...
In 1970 a group of direct marketers appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States against a law that was hurting their business. They called it unjust and unconstitutional. They claimed to have a constitutional right to say anything to you that they want, as often as they want, ``in any manner whatsoever,'' especially by sending you mail. Even if you told them to stop.
They complained that your right to force them to remove your name from the lists they sell had ``impoverished'' them ``in a confiscatory manner.'' They wanted this right to be taken away from you, so that they could go on making money selling information about you even if you told them not to. They also raised various legal objections to the law, saying that its requirement not to mail you anything and not to sell your name was ``unconstitutionally vague.''
...but their arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court
The court was not convinced by any of the junk pushers' arguments. The judges came to just the opposite conclusion: they found that the law ``permits a citizen to erect a wall . . . that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence.''
That law requires the US Postal Service to provide a simple form that you can fill in to stop any junk mailer from ever sending you anything else. The law was originally intended to stop pornographic junk mail, and the form still refers to the junk as ``erotically arousing advertisements.''
The court didn't like the idea of the employees of the USPS deciding for the nation what is erotically arousing and what isn't. It avoided the question of erotica completely by ruling that you decide what's junk: SM ``the addressee [has] complete and unfettered discretion in electing whether or not he desired to receive further material from a particular sender.'' To make their ruling absolutely clear, they said that you can stop a ``dry goods'' (clothing) catalog if you want.
The original law and the court's judgment on it are included below. If anyone has a copy of the direct marketers' appeal, we would be glad to publish it too. The court quoted only one sentence of their lofty libertarian sentiments. We're sorry they haven't been given equal time here, especially as the court was so very unsympathetic: it dismissed all of their pleas, and (as if to add insult to injury) threw in several blunt statements such as
``Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.''
U.S. Post Office Form 2150, ``Prohibitory order against sender''
Lodging Form 2150 or 1500 is simple and free of charge. It only asks for your name and address and sender's. You sign it and attach the mail they sent you, in its opened envelope, and give it to a postal clerk or mail it to the address below.
Form 1500 is available for download in PDF format from the USPS site. Or you can phone a major post office in your area and ask for their triplicate originals to be mailed to you.
The forms can also be submitted directly to:
Prohibitory Order Processing Center
US Postal Service
Post Office Box 3744
Memphis, TN 38173-0744
We have noticed a few common difficulties with the process, but nothing that a little persistence can't overcome. Only the bigger post offices seem to stock copies of the form. (The one they sent us was printed in 1968, in triplicate carbon.) But they were happy to mail us a copy when we phoned to ask for one. (It's called Prohibitory order against sender of pandering advertisement in the mails.)
When we took it to our local post office, the clerk was puzzled. He kept staring at the phrase ``erotically arousing or sexually provocative matter,'' and didn't see how it could apply to the supermarket coupons we had stapled it to. When we started to tell him about the Supreme Court's opinion, he advised us to speak to the Postmaster at another office. We hope that your local staff are more familiar with this apparently under-used service. If you have similar difficulty, try printing out page 13 of the Postal Bulletin 21977 (7-30-98) and point out the following paragraph:
Postmasters may not refuse to accept a Form 1500 because the advertisement in question does not appear to be sexually oriented. Only the addressee may make that determination.
The USPS has withdrawn Form 2150 and replaced it with Form 1500, which also serves the purpose of Form 2201. Form 1500 is just as powerful and contains clearer instructions on the back, including the following pleasing paragraph.
Your obtaining the protection offered through these two programs makes sending prohibited mail to you unlawful. However, it does not make such mailings physically impossible. If you receive an apparently violative mailpiece, contact your post office or refer to your notification letter for instructions on submitting the piece as evidence for possible enforcement action.
The article you attach to your a prohibitory order must be opened. For a very good reason, postal employees are not permitted to open sealed articles (a rule instituted by Benjamin Frankin when he was Postmaster General).
Direct marketers presume unless told otherwise
The result of this case is that all Americans have the right to stop direct mailers from sending them junk and from selling information about them. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of this, and exercising these rights is a chore.
We wish that the USPS would allow consumers to submit Form 2150 or 1500 through their web site, the same way that they accept submissions to their National Change of Address service.
The next two sections of this page are the Supreme Court's opinion and the original law that it applies to. Ever since this appeal, almost all mailers have kept a policy of obeying direct requests to stop mailing and to remove names.
